1989 (6) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....te Tribunal has referred the following question of law for the decision of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the subsidy received from the Central Government is not to be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets ?" The respondent is an assessee to incom....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he assets. The Revenue appealed before the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, in the light of its earlier orders passed in I. T. A. Nos. 333 to 335 (Coch) of 1980, dated November 25, 1981, held that the subsidy received from the Central Government cannot be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets. Thereafter, at the instance of the R....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ate and deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act. In the light of our earlier decision in I. T. R. No. 310 of 1982 dated March 16, 1989 (CIT v. Relish Foods [1989] 180 ITR 454), the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, holding that the subsidy received from the Central Government cannot be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets, has ....