https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421143 The court held that financial assistance received should be apportioned and reduced from asset costs for depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, applying the proviso to Explanation 10. It found Assessing Officer's apportionment of subsidy to all assets as illegal, remanding for correct determination. The court ruled that Explanation 10 and its proviso have no retrospective effect, disallowing adjustment of pre-01.04.1999 assistance in 2009-10 assessments. Appeals were partly allowed, directing reassessment by the Assessing Officer. en-us Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Jun 2022 18:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421143 The court held that financial assistance received should be apportioned and reduced from asset costs for depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, applying the proviso to Explanation 10. It found Assessing Officer's apportionment of subsidy to all assets as illegal, remanding for correct determination. The court ruled that Explanation 10 and its proviso have no retrospective effect, disallowing adjustment of pre-01.04.1999 assistance in 2009-10 assessments. Appeals were partly allowed, directing reassessment by the Assessing Officer. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421143