9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 215X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we dispose of all the aforesaid income-tax references (ITRs) since a common question of law is involved therein. 2. The main question which has been referred for the opinion of this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reads as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the cost of assets shall not be reduced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ouncement by this court. 4. This court in CIT v. Ruchira Papers Ltd. [1994] 208 ITR 601, had followed the decision of the Madras High Court (Srinivas Industries v. CIT [1991] 188 ITR 22) and it came to the conclusion that the actual cost of assets cannot be reduced by subsidy received. In fact this question has been settled by the apex court in CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. [1994] 210 ITR 830; AIR ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ost of the assets, though quantified as or geared to a percentage of such cost. If that be so, it does not partake of the character of a payment intended either directly or indirectly to meet the 'actual cost' 5. In view of the law settled by the Supreme Court, reference made to this court is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
