https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71205 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the decisions of the AO and CIT(A). It concluded that the investment subsidy received under the 'Target 2000' scheme was not intended to subsidize the cost of capital assets directly or indirectly. Therefore, the subsidy should not be deducted from the asset's cost for calculating depreciation under s. 43(1) of the IT Act. The Tribunal determined that the subsidy aimed to accelerate industrial development rather than reduce the cost of investment, thus not falling within the scope of Expln. 10 to s. 43(1). en-us Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71205 The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, overturning the decisions of the AO and CIT(A). It concluded that the investment subsidy received under the 'Target 2000' scheme was not intended to subsidize the cost of capital assets directly or indirectly. Therefore, the subsidy should not be deducted from the asset's cost for calculating depreciation under s. 43(1) of the IT Act. The Tribunal determined that the subsidy aimed to accelerate industrial development rather than reduce the cost of investment, thus not falling within the scope of Expln. 10 to s. 43(1). Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71205