https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17642 Capital subsidy under a scheme to promote industrial units in backward areas was not intended to meet the actual cost of specific assets, so it did not reduce actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Court treated the subsidy's computation by reference to a percentage of fixed capital cost as only a method of quantification, not proof of a direct or indirect nexus with acquisition cost. Additional material did not alter that construction of the scheme, and the assessee's position was upheld. en-us Tue, 14 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 18:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17642 Capital subsidy under a scheme to promote industrial units in backward areas was not intended to meet the actual cost of specific assets, so it did not reduce actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. The Court treated the subsidy's computation by reference to a percentage of fixed capital cost as only a method of quantification, not proof of a direct or indirect nexus with acquisition cost. Additional material did not alter that construction of the scheme, and the assessee's position was upheld. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 14 Nov 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17642