2008 (1) TMI 485 - AT - Income Tax

Nature of Subsidy Capital or Revenue ? - Deduction from the cost of assets under Explanation 10 to section 43(1) - subsidy not given to acquire any asset either directly or indirectly and thus it need not be considered for calculation of depreciation - HELD THAT - In our considered opinion, even after insertion of Expln. 10 to s. 43(1) of the Act, the basic principle underlying in the decision of the apex Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Ltd. 1994 (9) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT still holds the expression met directly or indirectly to come to the conclusion that only in a case where a subsidy or other grant was given to offset the cost of an asset, such payment/grant would fall within the expression 'met', whereas the subsidy received merely to accelerate the industrial development of the State cannot be considered as payments made specifically to meet a portion of the cost of the assets. we are of the view that the incentive in the form of subsidy cannot be considered as a payment directly or indirectly to meet any portion of the actual cost and thus it falls outside the ken of Expln. 10 to s. 43(1) of the Act. Thus, we are of the view that for the purpose of computing depreciation allowable to the assessee, the subsidy amount cannot be reduced from the cost of the capital asset. The AO is directed accordingly. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pronounced accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
1. Addition of investment subsidy under s. 43(1) of the IT Act for calculating depreciation.

Analysis:
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the addition of an investment subsidy received by the assessee company during the assessment year. The subsidy was received under a scheme by the Andhra Pradesh State Government known as 'Target 2000'. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) had both confirmed the addition of the subsidy amount for calculating depreciation under s. 43(1) of the IT Act. The AO argued that the subsidy was linked to the fixed capital investment and needed to be reduced from the cost of assets for depreciation calculation, citing Expln. 10 to s. 43(1) inserted from 1st April 1999.

The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision, stating that the indirect motive of the State Government in providing the subsidy was to reduce the cost of investment for the assessee. The CIT(A) interpreted that the subsidy indirectly met the cost and thus should be considered for depreciation calculation. The assessee contended that the subsidy was not meant to offset the cost of assets, referencing similar schemes and court decisions. The counsel argued that Expln. 10 to s. 43(1) did not change the fundamental concept that the subsidy should meet the cost directly or indirectly to be reduced from the asset's cost.

The Tribunal analyzed the 'Target 2000' scheme and concluded that the subsidy was intended to accelerate industrial development in the State and was not specifically meant to subsidize the cost of capital assets. Therefore, the subsidy did not fall within the scope of Expln. 10 to s. 43(1) of the Act. The Tribunal held that the subsidy amount should not be reduced from the cost of the capital asset for computing depreciation, overturning the decisions of the tax authorities. The appeal by the assessee was allowed, directing the AO accordingly.

In summary, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the subsidy received did not meet the cost of assets directly or indirectly and therefore should not be deducted from the asset's cost for calculating depreciation. The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation that the subsidy was intended to accelerate industrial development and was not specifically aimed at subsidizing the cost of capital assets, distinguishing it from schemes where subsidies were meant for that purpose.