https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17955 The High Court held that the subsidy granted to the assessee should be considered a capital receipt, not a loan, and that the deduction under section 80J on the subsidy amount was permissible as part of the capital employed. The Court emphasized that the subsidy merges with the capital employed by the industrial undertaking and should not be excluded from the actual cost calculation under section 43(1). The judgment favored the assessee, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and providing no order as to costs. en-us Mon, 03 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:35:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17955 The High Court held that the subsidy granted to the assessee should be considered a capital receipt, not a loan, and that the deduction under section 80J on the subsidy amount was permissible as part of the capital employed. The Court emphasized that the subsidy merges with the capital employed by the industrial undertaking and should not be excluded from the actual cost calculation under section 43(1). The judgment favored the assessee, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and providing no order as to costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 03 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17955