2004 (8) TMI 38 - HC - Income Tax

Depreciation on generator - Income-tax Officer revised the assessment and determined the cost of the generator by reducing it by the amount of subsidy received (from the U. P. Financial Corporation) and allowed depreciation on such reduced amount - whether the amount of subsidy received should be deducted while working out the cost of a capital asset - 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 - Thus amount of subsidy is not to be deducted from the actual cost under section 43(1) for the purpose of calculation of depreciation

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of depreciation calculation for assessment year 1978-79 based on subsidy received for a generator purchased by a registered firm.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise orders related to depreciation calculations.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of depreciation calculation for assessment year 1978-79 based on subsidy received for a generator purchased by a registered firm:

The case involved a registered firm operating a cold storage that purchased a generator and received subsidies from the U. P. Financial Corporation. The dispute arose regarding the treatment of the subsidy received in relation to the calculation of depreciation for the generator. The Income-tax Officer initially allowed depreciation based on the total cost of the generator, but subsequent developments led to reconsideration of the depreciation calculation. The Commissioner of Income-tax initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, directing the Income-tax Officer to adjust the cost of the generator for depreciation by deducting the subsidy amount. However, the Tribunal later canceled this order, leading to a series of appeals and reference applications.

The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the assessment for the year 1978-79, directed the Income-tax Officer to calculate depreciation by adopting the Written Down Value (W.D.V.) as per the assessment order for the previous year 1977-78. The Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the original assessment by the Income-tax Officer stood valid, and the depreciation allowed should not be changed. The court referred to relevant legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd., which clarified that subsidies are not to be deducted from the actual cost of assets for depreciation calculation. Following this interpretation, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the subsidy amount should not be deducted from the actual cost of the generator for depreciation purposes.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise orders related to depreciation calculations:

The jurisdictional aspect of the Commissioner of Income-tax to revise orders related to depreciation calculations was also a crucial issue in the case. The Commissioner's order directing adjustments to the cost of the generator for depreciation was initially challenged, leading to a series of legal proceedings and appeals. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the Commissioner's order and uphold the original assessment by the Income-tax Officer played a significant role in determining the final outcome of the case. The court's analysis focused on the validity of the original assessment and the limitations on revising such assessments, ultimately leading to the affirmation of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision regarding the depreciation calculation methodology for the assessment year 1978-79.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the complexities involved in determining depreciation calculations for assets in light of subsidies received and the legal principles governing such adjustments. The court's reliance on legal precedents and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act guided the resolution of the issues raised in the case, ultimately resulting in a ruling in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.