Case Law Details
Pr. CIT Vs M/s. Welspun Steel Ltd. (Bombay High Court)
If Government subsidy was intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries. In such a case, specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which was the basis for determining the subsidy, would be granted. The Court held that, such basis for determining the subsidy was only a measure adopted under the scheme to quantify the financial aid and it was not a payment, directly or indirectly to meet any portion of the actual cost of acquisition of capital asset. So where assessee was granted Government subsidy for purpose of setting up new industry, and not merely for acquisition of plant or machinery, said subsidy amount would not be deducted from actual cost of plant and machinery.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Since these appeals involve similar questions and arise out of a common judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short “the Tribunal”) they have been heard together and would be disposed of finally by the common judgment. Facts may be noted from Income Tax Appeal No.1743 of 2016.
2. The Revenue is in Appeal against the Judgment of the Tribunal, raising following questions for our consideration:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
