https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400663 A subsidy granted for setting up industrial units and accelerating industrial development was held to be capital in nature because its character depended on the object of the scheme, not its form. As the subsidy was not a trading receipt, it was not taxable as revenue income. The subsidy also did not attract Explanation 10 to section 43(1), since that provision applies only where government assistance meets the cost of a specific asset directly or indirectly. On the facts stated, the subsidy was not required to be reduced from the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes, and the assessee succeeded on both issues. en-us Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Nov 2020 12:51:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400663 A subsidy granted for setting up industrial units and accelerating industrial development was held to be capital in nature because its character depended on the object of the scheme, not its form. As the subsidy was not a trading receipt, it was not taxable as revenue income. The subsidy also did not attract Explanation 10 to section 43(1), since that provision applies only where government assistance meets the cost of a specific asset directly or indirectly. On the facts stated, the subsidy was not required to be reduced from the actual cost of assets for depreciation purposes, and the assessee succeeded on both issues. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400663