1983 (3) TMI 67

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssessee and also involve common contentions, they are disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The assessee had installed a generator at its factory for which it had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 1,05,542. The ITO found that the assessee had received a subsidy of Rs. 37,905 from U.P. Financial Corporation towards the cost of the generator. He was of the view that ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fore, it could not be deducted in arriving at 'actual cost' of the asset. According to the assessee, its actual cost to the assessee in the year under appeal was Rs. 1,05,542, which alone could be taken into account for allowing depreciation and development rebate. The Commissioner (Appeals) agreed with this view and directed the ITO to determine the actual cost of the generator at Rs. 1,05,542. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....received subsequently. There is no dispute about this fact. It appears that the assessee had applied for subsidy on 30-5-1976. After meeting various formalities, it was actually granted to the assessee only on 26-5-1977. In fact, some other formalities had also been carried out, the last being on 26-5-1980. However, as stated by us above, it cannot be denied that subsidy related back to the date o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct of Rs. 67,637 only. 5. We will now deal with the assessee's appeal. The ITO found that the assessee had created development rebate reserve only to the extent of Rs. 12,548 in the assessment year under appeal. He, therefore, allowed development rebate only to the extent of Rs. 16,731, 75 per cent of this amount was Rs. 12,548. He rejected the assessee's claim that development rebate of Rs. 6,....