https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14581 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the subsidy received should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation and relief under section 80J. Additionally, the Court determined that the value of building under construction and machinery under erection should be considered for grant of relief under section 80J. However, the Court ruled against the assessee regarding weighted deduction under section 35B, stating that royalty paid is not includible for weighted deduction. In the matter of car allowance, house rent allowance, and medical expenses reimbursement, the Court upheld the exclusion of medical expenses reimbursement from disallowance under section 40A(5) but remanded other items for reevaluation by the Tribunal. en-us Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:54:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14581 The High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the subsidy received should not be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation and relief under section 80J. Additionally, the Court determined that the value of building under construction and machinery under erection should be considered for grant of relief under section 80J. However, the Court ruled against the assessee regarding weighted deduction under section 35B, stating that royalty paid is not includible for weighted deduction. In the matter of car allowance, house rent allowance, and medical expenses reimbursement, the Court upheld the exclusion of medical expenses reimbursement from disallowance under section 40A(5) but remanded other items for reevaluation by the Tribunal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 23 Nov 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14581