https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16411 Industrial promotion subsidy received after acquisition of assets was not required to be reduced from the actual cost or written down value of building, plant and machinery for depreciation purposes. Interpreting "actual cost" under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court held that such subsidy did not bear the character that justifies deduction from actual cost, and the expression was to be construed liberally in the taxing context. The earlier contrary view was treated as having been overruled by the Supreme Court, and depreciation was therefore allowable without reducing the subsidy from the asset base. en-us Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 15:40:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16411 Industrial promotion subsidy received after acquisition of assets was not required to be reduced from the actual cost or written down value of building, plant and machinery for depreciation purposes. Interpreting "actual cost" under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Court held that such subsidy did not bear the character that justifies deduction from actual cost, and the expression was to be construed liberally in the taxing context. The earlier contrary view was treated as having been overruled by the Supreme Court, and depreciation was therefore allowable without reducing the subsidy from the asset base. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 05 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16411