https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182061 The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the subsidy received by the assessee for installing windmills was an incentive for promoting non-traditional energy sources and not linked to the acquisition cost of the windmills. Consequently, the subsidy should not be deducted from the written down value for computing depreciation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal and CIT (A) that the subsidy did not fall under explanation 10 to sec.43(1), aligning with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the P.J. Chemicals case. en-us Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Feb 2024 13:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182061 The HC dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision that the subsidy received by the assessee for installing windmills was an incentive for promoting non-traditional energy sources and not linked to the acquisition cost of the windmills. Consequently, the subsidy should not be deducted from the written down value for computing depreciation. The HC agreed with the Tribunal and CIT (A) that the subsidy did not fall under explanation 10 to sec.43(1), aligning with the Supreme Court's reasoning in the P.J. Chemicals case. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 21 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182061