A.K. MATHUR, J.—All these references mentioned in the Schedule appended to this order involve common question of law, therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment. The arguments were heard at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur as well as the Bench at Jaipur.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in all these references, the facts of D.B. Income-tax Reference No. 20/84: Commissioner of income-tax Jodhpur Vs. M/s. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors Pvt. Ltd. Jodhpur are taken into consideration for the convenient disposal of all these references:

3. The facts giving rise to this reference are that the assessee received subsidy from the Central Government twice in different amounts. The Income-tax Officer allowed depreciation on building, plant and machinery after excluding these two amounts or subsidy. The contention of the assessee was that the subsidy was not given by the Central Government to meet out the cost of assets directly or indirectly within the meaning of Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as the Act) and, therefore, for allowing the depreciation, these two amounts of subsidy should not be deducted from the cost of the assets.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document