1989 (6) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng question of law for the decision of this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the subsidy received from the Central Government is not to be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets ?" The respondent is an assessee to income-tax. The matter arises for the assessm .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal, in the light of its earlier orders passed in I. T. A. Nos. 333 to 335 (Coch) of 1980, dated November 25, 1981, held that the subsidy received from the Central Government cannot be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets. Thereafter, at the instance of the Revenue, the Income-tax Appellate Tribuna .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Income-tax Act. In the light of our earlier decision in I. T. R. No. 310 of 1982 dated March 16, 1989 (CIT v. Relish Foods [1989] 180 ITR 454), the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, holding that the subsidy received from the Central Government cannot be deducted from the cost of the assets to arrive at the actual cost to the assessee of the assets, has to be justified in law. We answer the que .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X