TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (5) TMI 55
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... % outright grant or subsidy for industrial units in selected backward areas and growth centres. The subsidy amount had been calculated on the basis of investments on the fixed assets by the company upto 30-6-1978. The investment of the assessee company came to Rs. 23,87,000 on buildings and Rs. 35,54,000 on plant and machinery. The Income-tax Officer came to the conclusion that the subsidy received by the assessee was towards meeting the cost incurred by the assessee in these investments and as such, in terms of the provisions of section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the depreciation should be allowed to the assessee only after deducting the said amount from the original costs of the assets. The Income-tax Officer allotted Rs. 1,77,85....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r even for repaying loans already borrowed. Thus, there is no direct or indirect relationship to meet a portion of actual cost and as such the amount in question would not come within the ambit of the term "met" in section 43(1) of the Act. Consequently, the amount in question was not liable to be deducted from the written down value of land, buildings, plant and machinery for computing depreciation. We are supported in this view of the matter by the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pioneer Match Works v. ITO [1982] 1 SOT 331 (Mad.) (SB). We respectfully follow the said decision and confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this point and reject the ground raised by the department. 3. The ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ars had not been filed along with the return. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. Murlidhar Mathura Prasad [1979] 118 ITR 392 and held that filing of particulars in the proceedings under section 144B of the Act was sufficient compliance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 35CC of the Act. Since the Income-tax Officer had not considered the particulars contained in form No. 3AA filed before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings under section 144B, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed the Income-tax Officer to consider the assessee's claim on merits. Against this direction, the depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section 35CC was brought to our notice. We find that in sub-section (3), it is not specifically mentioned that the statement of expenditure should accompany the first return filed under sub-section (1) of section 139. The assessee had a right to file return under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) of section 139 and since it is not specifically mentioned in section 35CC(3) that the statement of expenditure should be filed along with the first return (u/s 139(1)) only, such statement could as well as be filed along with returns under sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) of section 139 without violating the literal requirements of section 35CC(3). This, in substance, would mean that the statement of expenditure could be filed in the course of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 35CC that the statement should be filed along with the return should therefore be held to be directory and mandatory. The words "along with the return" in the circumstances should be construed to mean that expenditure would be allowable on filing of statement only in those cases where assessment is completed on the filing of the return and would not be allowable in those cases, where the assessee does not file the return and the Income-tax Officer proceeds to complete the assessment ex parte although the assessee might have filed statement of expenditure in proceeding. 8. We find that prior to amendment made with effect from 1-4-1971 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970, section 184(7) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 required that....