https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177046 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, dismissing the revenue's appeal on both issues. The depreciation claim was allowed without reducing the subsidy from the cost of assets, relying on the Supreme Court precedent that government subsidies for industrial development do not reduce actual asset costs. Additionally, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to 1% of the exempted income, in accordance with the Bombay High Court ruling that Rule 8D is not applicable retrospectively for the relevant assessment year. en-us Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jan 2016 10:13:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177046 The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions, dismissing the revenue's appeal on both issues. The depreciation claim was allowed without reducing the subsidy from the cost of assets, relying on the Supreme Court precedent that government subsidies for industrial development do not reduce actual asset costs. Additionally, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to 1% of the exempted income, in accordance with the Bombay High Court ruling that Rule 8D is not applicable retrospectively for the relevant assessment year. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177046