2001 (10) TMI 21 - HC - Income Tax

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Central Government subsidy is not deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery and building while computing the original cost thereof under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the purpose of allowing depreciation or investment allowance, etc.? - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be allowed on the gross income before deducting depreciation and investment allowance? - Thus the second question decided and answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Thus, question No. 1 is decided in favour of the assessee and against the Department is answered. The second question is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Central Government subsidy is deductible from the money cost to the assessee of its plant, machinery, and building while computing the original cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for allowing depreciation or investment allowance?
2. Whether deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be allowed on the gross income before deducting depreciation and investment allowance?

Analysis:

1. The first issue revolves around the question of whether the Central Government subsidy received by the assessee should be deducted from the money cost of plant, machinery, and building for the purpose of allowing depreciation or investment allowance. The court referred to the definition of subsidy as financial aid given by the Government to encourage the establishment of industries in backward areas. Relying on the decision in CIT v. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd., the court held that such subsidies cannot be excluded from the actual cost for depreciation purposes. The apex court in CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. further clarified that a Government subsidy is not meant to meet the cost of assets and should not be deducted from the actual cost under section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the subsidy forms part of the total assets and should not be excluded from the actual cost.

2. The second issue concerns the deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act on the gross income before deducting depreciation and investment allowance. The court referred to the decision in CIT v. Sun Stone Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd., which held that the income eligible for deduction under section 80HH should be the net income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not the gross income. The assessing authority had calculated the deduction on the net income, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, however, allowed the appeal based on its earlier decision in Digchem Industries' case. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the Department, stating that the deduction under section 80HH should be calculated on the net income after deducting depreciation and investment allowance.

In conclusion, the court decided in favor of the assessee on the first issue regarding the treatment of Central Government subsidy, while ruling in favor of the Department on the second issue concerning the deduction under section 80HH. The judgments in previous cases and the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act played a crucial role in determining the outcomes of both issues.