https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21489 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the subsidy received should not be deducted from the asset value for depreciation and investment allowance calculation. The court emphasized that the subsidy was granted to augment the capital resources of the industry and was not specifically intended to meet a part of the asset cost. As the subsidy was considered an incentive for industrial development and not a contribution towards the cost of assets, it should not be deducted for depreciation purposes. The decision favored the assessee over the Revenue's appeal. en-us Mon, 02 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Nov 2009 17:19:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21489 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the subsidy received should not be deducted from the asset value for depreciation and investment allowance calculation. The court emphasized that the subsidy was granted to augment the capital resources of the industry and was not specifically intended to meet a part of the asset cost. As the subsidy was considered an incentive for industrial development and not a contribution towards the cost of assets, it should not be deducted for depreciation purposes. The decision favored the assessee over the Revenue's appeal. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 02 Dec 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21489