https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22829 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the cash subsidy received should not be deducted from the 'actual cost' under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. The subsidy was deemed to be aimed at promoting industrial growth in backward areas rather than covering asset costs. The court distinguished the subsidy as a means to enhance the capital resources of the industry. The decision aligned with previous judgments emphasizing the promotional nature of such subsidies to encourage industrial development in underdeveloped regions. en-us Thu, 12 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 14 Dec 2009 13:43:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22829 The court ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the cash subsidy received should not be deducted from the 'actual cost' under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. The subsidy was deemed to be aimed at promoting industrial growth in backward areas rather than covering asset costs. The court distinguished the subsidy as a means to enhance the capital resources of the industry. The decision aligned with previous judgments emphasizing the promotional nature of such subsidies to encourage industrial development in underdeveloped regions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Jul 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22829