https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58872 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee on both issues. It ruled that the subsidy received should not be deducted from the written down value of assets for depreciation purposes, as it was a general incentive and not meant for specific asset costs. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the allowance of the deduction for rural development expenses under section 35CC, deeming the filing of particulars during assessment proceedings as compliant with the law. The department's appeal was dismissed in both instances. en-us Thu, 28 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:46:39 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58872 The Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in favor of the assessee on both issues. It ruled that the subsidy received should not be deducted from the written down value of assets for depreciation purposes, as it was a general incentive and not meant for specific asset costs. Additionally, the Tribunal confirmed the allowance of the deduction for rural development expenses under section 35CC, deeming the filing of particulars during assessment proceedings as compliant with the law. The department's appeal was dismissed in both instances. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 28 May 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58872