https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21806 The case centered on interpreting the term "actual cost" under section 43 of the Income-tax Act concerning subsidies received under a specific scheme. The dispute revolved around whether a subsidy should be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation calculation. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that subsidies for industrial growth should not be presumed as reimbursement for asset costs unless explicitly stated, based on the grantor's intention and purpose of the subsidy scheme. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, highlighting that the subsidy was an incentive for industrial growth, not reimbursement for asset costs. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:56:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21806 The case centered on interpreting the term "actual cost" under section 43 of the Income-tax Act concerning subsidies received under a specific scheme. The dispute revolved around whether a subsidy should be deducted from the cost of assets for depreciation calculation. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that subsidies for industrial growth should not be presumed as reimbursement for asset costs unless explicitly stated, based on the grantor's intention and purpose of the subsidy scheme. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, highlighting that the subsidy was an incentive for industrial growth, not reimbursement for asset costs. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 20 Nov 1991 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21806