Asset-wise subsidy alone can be reduced from the actual cost

Dayal Steel Ltd. Vs Addl. CIT (ITAT Patna)– Admitted facts are that during the year under consideration assessee-company received incentive subsidy from Govt. of Jharkhand as encouragement for setting up of new industrial project and/or expansion/modernization of the existing unit. It is also a fact that maximum limit of the subsidy was restricted with reference to the value of fixed capital investments in land, building, plant and machinery but no part of the subsidy was specifically intended to subsidize the cost of any fixed asset, therefore, it cannot be said that the subsidy was to meet a portion of cost of the asset. According to us, the assessee has rightly not reduced the amount of subsidy received from the actual cost/WDV of the fixed assets while claiming depreciation. Even Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (supra) has considered this issue and held that where Government subsidy is intended as an incentive to encourage entrepreneurs to move to backward areas and establish industries, the specified percentage of the fixed capital cost, which is the basis for determining the subsidy, being only a measure adopted under the scheme to quantify the financial aid, is not a payment, directly or indirectly, to meet any portion of the actual cost. Therefore, the said amount of subsidy cannot be deducted from the actual cost under section 43(1) for the purpose allowing depreciation. It is further held that if Government subsidy is an incentive not for the specific purpose of meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, though quantified as a percentage of such cost, it does not partake the character of payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the “actual cost”. By implication, the above judgment also provides that if the subsidy is intended for meeting a portion of the cost of the assets, then such subsidy should be deducted from the actual cost, for the purpose of computing depreciation. As per Hon’ble Supreme Court, the law is that if the subsidy is asset-specific, such subsidy goes to reduce the actual cost. If the subsidy is to encourage setting up of the industry, it does not go to reduce the actual cost, even though the amount of subsidy was quantified on the basis of the percentage of the total investment made by the assessee.

The law is already settled on the subject. Now, the only wavering is with reference to Explanation 10 provided under section 43(1). The said Explanation provides that where a portion of the cost of an asset acquired by the assessee has been met directly or indirectly by the Central Government or a State Government or any authority established under any law or by any other person, in the form of a subsidy or grant or reimbursement (by whatever name called), then, so much of the cost as is relatable to such subsidy or grant or reimbursement shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset to the assessee. It is further, provided there under, that where such subsidy or grant or reimbursement of such nature that it cannot be directly relatable to the asset acquired, so much of the amount which bears to the total subsidy or reimbursement or grant the same proportion as such asset bears to all the assets in respect of or with reference to which the subsidy or grant or reimbursement is so received, shall not be included in the actual cost of the asset to the assessee. In order to invoke Explanation 10, it is necessary to show that the subsidy was directly or indirectly used for acquiring an asset. This is again a question of fact. The relatable subsidy to such asset can be reduced from the cost only if it is found that the cost for acquiring that asset was directly or indirectly met out of the subsidy. Likewise in the proviso, it is necessary to show that the subsidy has been directly or indirectly used to acquire an asset but it is not possible to exactly quantify the amount directly or indirectly used for acquiring the asset. Here also, a finding of fact is necessary that an asset was acquired by directly or indirectly using the subsidy. The above Explanation and the proviso thereto do not dilute the finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P. J. Chemicals Ltd. (supra) that asset-wise subsidy alone can be reduced from the actual cost. The above Explanation and the proviso therein attempt to explain the law. They are not bringing any new law different from the law considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cases. We also find that the assessing officer has reduced the value of the fixed assets by the amount of subsidy proportionately which also proves that assessing officer has failed to establish the direct connection with the specific assets.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and legal position explained by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Ltd.(supra), we are of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly denied the claim of depreciation of assessee.