https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12477 A subsidy granted to induce industrial development in a backward area was treated as an incentive and not as a payment meeting part of the actual cost of fixed assets. On that basis, it was not required to be deducted while computing actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act for depreciation and development rebate purposes. The issue was also regarded as debatable in light of settled judicial position, so it did not amount to an error apparent on the record. Rectification under section 154 on this point was therefore not sustainable, and the position was favourable to the assessee. en-us Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Feb 2010 15:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12477 A subsidy granted to induce industrial development in a backward area was treated as an incentive and not as a payment meeting part of the actual cost of fixed assets. On that basis, it was not required to be deducted while computing actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act for depreciation and development rebate purposes. The issue was also regarded as debatable in light of settled judicial position, so it did not amount to an error apparent on the record. Rectification under section 154 on this point was therefore not sustainable, and the position was favourable to the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12477