https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783551 The dominant issue was whether the subsidy received under the State incentive scheme was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, and whether it required reduction from actual cost under Explanation 10 to s. 43(1). The Tribunal held that Explanation 10 applies only where the subsidy is relatable to acquisition of a fixed asset; since the subsidy was not linked to any specific fixed asset, Explanation 10 and its proviso were inapplicable. Consequently, the subsidy was characterized as a capital receipt, the contrary appellate finding was reversed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed. en-us Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Dec 2025 08:01:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783551 The dominant issue was whether the subsidy received under the State incentive scheme was a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, and whether it required reduction from actual cost under Explanation 10 to s. 43(1). The Tribunal held that Explanation 10 applies only where the subsidy is relatable to acquisition of a fixed asset; since the subsidy was not linked to any specific fixed asset, Explanation 10 and its proviso were inapplicable. Consequently, the subsidy was characterized as a capital receipt, the contrary appellate finding was reversed, and the assessee's appeal was allowed. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 10 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783551