https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434962 The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and allowed the claim for additional depreciation. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of amortization of leasehold premium expenses. The treatment of government subsidy was decided in favor of the assessee, allowing it to be considered as capital in nature without reducing the actual cost of the asset for depreciation purposes. en-us Tue, 07 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Mar 2023 08:37:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434962 The appeal filed by the assessee was partly allowed. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to recompute the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) and allowed the claim for additional depreciation. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of amortization of leasehold premium expenses. The treatment of government subsidy was decided in favor of the assessee, allowing it to be considered as capital in nature without reducing the actual cost of the asset for depreciation purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 07 Feb 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=434962