2016 (6) TMI 560 - HC - Income Tax

Subsidy receipt - merely because the subsidy is transferred to the capital account of the partners, the cost of assets could be reduced by the said amount while working out the depreciation allowance? - Held that - Subsidy which was received against the investment was made in a backward area where industries were not present. The same was for promotion and that will not reduce the value of the assets. In that view of the matter, considering the evidence on record, both the issues, i.e. issue No.1 and 2 are required to be answered in favour of the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act regarding reduction of subsidy from the actual cost of assets for depreciation calculation.
2. Applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act on assets acquired before its insertion.

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act concerning the reduction of subsidy from the actual cost of assets for the calculation of depreciation. The Tribunal had upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to reduce the subsidy amount from the cost of assets for depreciation purposes. The Court referred to a previous judgment where it was established that the actual cost of assets should be reduced by any subsidy received, as per Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. However, the Court noted that in this case, the subsidy was received for investment in a backward area for promotion purposes, and therefore, it should not reduce the value of the assets. Consequently, the Court concluded that both issues raised in this regard should be decided in favor of the assessee.

Issue 2:
The second issue pertains to the applicability of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act on assets acquired before its insertion. The Court highlighted that when the assets in question were acquired, Explanation 10 was not part of the law. The Court emphasized that the assets entered a block of assets and lost their independent identity, merging with other assets in the block. As a result, the Court concluded that Explanation 10 cannot be applied retrospectively to assets that were already part of a block before its insertion. The Court further noted that the statute does not permit reducing the written down value of a block of assets by the amount of subsidy received. Therefore, the Court held that Explanation 10 could not be applied to assets forming part of a block of assets acquired before its insertion.

In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, emphasizing that the subsidy received for investment in a backward area should not reduce the value of the assets and that Explanation 10 cannot be applied retrospectively to assets already forming part of a block before its insertion.