https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16450 The Supreme Court held that the central subsidy received by the assessee is an incentive and not a payment to meet the actual cost of the asset. Therefore, the subsidy should not be deducted from the cost of the asset for depreciation purposes. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, concluding that the subsidy should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for depreciation. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs. en-us Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:08:16 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16450 The Supreme Court held that the central subsidy received by the assessee is an incentive and not a payment to meet the actual cost of the asset. Therefore, the subsidy should not be deducted from the cost of the asset for depreciation purposes. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, concluding that the subsidy should not be reduced from the cost of the assets for depreciation. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 01 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16450