2012 (6) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he respondent assessee. 3. The respondent is an industrial unit in the Cochin Special Economic Zone engaged in production and export of goods, most of which is to one client outside India. While setting up the industrial unit, the respondent got incentives from both the Central and State Governments, some of which were in the form of subsidy based on capital investments which include cost of plant and machinery. In the regular assessment for the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer allowed depreciation on the written down value of block of assets in terms of the claim made by the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer noticed that part of the cost of the machinery forming block of assets was subsidised by the State Government a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... unable to interfere with the orders of the Tribunal because the Tribunal has followed the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 830/76 Taxman 611. Further we do not know on what basis the Department can introduce retrospectivity to the amendment introduced when the Legislature has not done so. Obviously, the above amendment is prospective in nature and the same applies to investments made on plant and machinery and other depreciable assets after 01/04/1999. So much so, we uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal on this issue. 6. The next issue raised pertains to the pattern of determination of export profit eligible for deduction. There is no dispute on the formul....