https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71818 The Tribunal upheld the assessee's position that central subsidy received should not reduce the cost of plant and machinery for depreciation grant, based on a Bombay High Court judgment. The challenge regarding weighted deduction under s. 35B was rejected due to the ground not being raised before the CIT(A). The Tribunal disagreed with allowing investment allowance and depreciation on capitalized interest payments, following a Bombay High Court ruling. The deletion of additions towards provision for leave salary was partially allowed, considering the liability as contingent. The Department's appeal succeeded in part, with the Tribunal deciding in favor of the assessee on some grounds and partially allowing the Department's appeal on others. en-us Fri, 04 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:12:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71818 The Tribunal upheld the assessee's position that central subsidy received should not reduce the cost of plant and machinery for depreciation grant, based on a Bombay High Court judgment. The challenge regarding weighted deduction under s. 35B was rejected due to the ground not being raised before the CIT(A). The Tribunal disagreed with allowing investment allowance and depreciation on capitalized interest payments, following a Bombay High Court ruling. The deletion of additions towards provision for leave salary was partially allowed, considering the liability as contingent. The Department's appeal succeeded in part, with the Tribunal deciding in favor of the assessee on some grounds and partially allowing the Department's appeal on others. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 04 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71818