1991 (1) TMI 120 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:

1. Whether the subsidy received by the assessee under the scheme is to meet the cost of the machinery and falls u/s 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the subsidy is an outright grant even though subject to conditions as per the agreement with SIPCOT.
3. Whether the subsidy should be considered for determining the actual cost u/s 43(1) even if received in a later year than the acquisition and installation of machinery.

Summary of Judgment:

Issue 1: Subsidy and Cost of Machinery u/s 43(1)

The court examined whether the subsidy received by the assessee should be deducted from the cost of machinery for depreciation purposes u/s 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The subsidy scheme aimed to promote industrial growth in backward areas by providing financial aid. The court determined that the subsidy was a financial incentive and not specifically meant to defray the cost of machinery. Therefore, it should not be deducted from the actual cost of the machinery. The court referenced multiple decisions from other High Courts supporting this view, emphasizing the subsidy's nature as an incentive rather than a reimbursement for machinery costs.

Issue 2: Nature of Subsidy as an Outright Grant

The court found that the subsidy, though subject to conditions, was not an outright grant meant to reduce the cost of machinery. It was provided as an incentive for setting up industries in backward areas and was not tied to the acquisition of specific assets like machinery. The subsidy was disbursed after the units went into production, further supporting the view that it was not intended to meet the cost of machinery directly or indirectly.

Issue 3: Timing of Subsidy Receipt and Actual Cost Determination

The court held that the timing of the subsidy receipt did not affect its nature. Even if the subsidy was received in a year later than the acquisition and installation of machinery, it did not change the fact that the subsidy was not meant to reduce the cost of the capital assets. The subsidy was quantified as a percentage of the fixed capital investment but was not tied to the cost of individual components like machinery.

Conclusion:

The court answered the first question in the negative, stating that the subsidy should not be deducted from the cost of machinery u/s 43(1). Consequently, the second and third questions were not addressed as they were rendered unnecessary by the first conclusion. The references in T.C. Nos. 900 and 901 of 1982 and T.C. Nos. 122 and 1136 of 1984 were answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No order as to costs was made in all these tax cases.