TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (3) TMI 76
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppellate Tribunal (in short "the Tribunal") has referred the following two questions of law for the decision of this court : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on an interpretation of section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, the subsidy received should be deducted from the cost of assets for purposes of allowing development rebate and depreciation on such assets and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e was that depreciation and relief under section 80J of the Act should be afforded ignoring the subsidy received from the Government. The Income-tax Officer took the view that the subsidy received from the Government should be reduced from the value of the assets for computation of depreciation and relief under section 80J of the Act. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim. In appeal, the Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rred to the nature of subsidy received by the assessee in paragraph 7 of the appellate order. It is stated that the subsidy was given in this case for industries situated in backward areas. The said subsidy is similar to the subsidy granted by the State Industries Promotion Corporation, which was construed by the Special Bench of the, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Madras, as having nothing to do w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... [1983] 143 ITR 60 (All), CIT v. Godavari Plywoods Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 632 (AP), CIT v. Bhandari Capacitors Private Ltd. [1987] 168 ITR 647, (MP), CIT v. Diamond Dies Manufacturing Corporation P. Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 655 (Kar), CIT v. Premier Extraction (P.) Ltd. [1989] 175 ITR 22 (MP) and CIT v. Dewas Chemical and Fertilizers Mfg. Co. [1989] 176 ITR 71 (MP). In the light of these decisions, it is....