TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1245
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd granuals in the name and style of M/s Sudarshan Pollyalloys. The assessee filed her return of income for assessment year 2010-11 on 22.09.2010 and subsequently revised the return of income on 08.01.2011 declaring total income of Rs. 35,64,500/- and agricultural income of Rs. 2,05,000/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 22.11.2012 and the total income was determined at Rs. 40,16,898/-. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A), who vide order dated 21.07.2014 dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reafter on after reduced amount, the assessee should have claimed the depreciation. The ld. Assessing Officer thereafter reducing the subsidy amount from the block of assets re-worked the excess depreciation to the extent of Rs. 1,23,398/- and disallowed the same. Aggrieved by the order of ld. Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A), who upheld the order of ld. Assessing Officer by holding as under :- "8. I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same, it has been noticed that Explanation-10 to section 43(1) was introduced with effect from A.Y.1999-2000 and the decision relied on by the appellant of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. (1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant has received subsidy from State Government under Capital Incentive Scheme on the basis of cost of capital assets acquired by the appellant. The subsidy is certainly relatable to the cost of assets and certainly reduced the cost of assets incurred by the appellant. In view of the above provisions of Explanation-10 to section 43, the appellant should have deducted the proportionate subsidy from the cost of assets for arriving at allowable depreciation. This proposition is supported by the following decisions - (1) Alfa Laval India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 117 TTJ 902 (Pune) - In this case it has been laid down that Special Capital Incentive, though accrued in financial year 1995-96, having been received by the assessee in previous ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustries Ltd. A.Y.1986-87 (2004) 88 ITD 273 (Mumbai SB) In these cases, the assessees have received Sales Tax subsidy for a period of 5 years under the Government of Maharashtra policy for dispersal of industries in under develop and developing areas of the State. The Hon'ble ITATs have not considered Explanation-10 to section 43 in view of the fact that no subsidy has been received towards investment in assets. (3) CIT Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. A.Y. 1986-87 (2011) 339 ITR 632 (Bom.) In this case, the assessee has received Sales Tax subsidy for a period of 5 years under the Government of Maharashtra policy for dispersal of industries in under develop and developing areas of the State. The Hon'ble ITAT has not considered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the subsidy is out of the ken of Explanation-10 to section 43(1). In respect of the decisions relied on by the appellant at Sr.No.(1) to (5), it has been noticed that the facts of the said cases are different and incentive scheme under which the subsidy granted was also different and in these cases Explanation- 10 to section 43(1) has not been considered. Therefore, these decisions are not applicable to the case of the appellant. In respect of decision relied on by the appellant at Sr.No.(6), it has been noticed that incentive scheme under which the subsidy granted is different from the case of the appellant. Further, the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT, Pune in the case of Alfa Laval India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2008) 117 TTJ 902 sha....