M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was for specific assets and thus should be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for depreciation calculation under Section 43(1). However, it allowed depreciation at the higher rate of 80% (half rate due to less than 180 days usage) on all components of the wind power project except land.
What were the facts?
The assessee company, a special purpose vehicle for developing a Textile Park, received a government subsidy. The Assessing Officer reduced this subsidy from the cost of assets (wind power project) for depreciation calculation, citing Section 43(1). The assessee argued against this reduction and also for a higher depreciation rate on the entire project cost.
What were the issues?
Whether government subsidy received for developing a textile park should be reduced from the actual cost of assets for depreciation, and whether a higher depreciation rate applies to all components of a wind power project.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sasisri Extractions Ltd. v. ACIT20 citing122 ITD 428 · 2010 · ITAT
- Inventaa Chemical Ltd. v. ACIT11 citing42 SOT 249 · ITAT
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES ’B’ JAIPUR
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 325 & 326/JP/2018
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- M/S Kishangarh Hi Tech Textile Park Ltd… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…Jaipur11 Dec 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inventaa Chemical Ltd. v. ACIT and 1 other authority
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received by the assessee was for specific assets and thus should be reduced from the actual cost of the assets for depreciation calculation under Section 43(1). However, it allowed depr...
- DCIT, Circle-1, Thane vs Everest Industries Ltd., MumbaiMumbai30 Jun 2023Partly Allowed
Also relies on Inventaa Chemical Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's ground regarding leave encashment as infructuous. It also dismissed the ground related to the non-exclusion of provision for doubtful debts under Section 115JB, finding it identical ...
- Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax, (OSD)… vs M/S. Lokmangal Agro Industrial Ltd, SolapurPune7 Dec 2022Partly Allowed
Also relies on Sasisri Extractions Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the subsidy received was a capital receipt and not meant to offset the cost of assets for depreciation purposes, thus upholding the deletion of the depreciation disallowance. For Section 14A, the m...
- M/S. Alkoplus Producers Pvt. Ltd., Latur vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, LaturPune4 Apr 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Sasisri Extractions Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of commission disallowance, stating the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without proper verification. The subsidy was held to be a capital receipt and not reducible from the cost of assets.
- Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/S. Alkoplus Producers Private Ltd., LaturPune4 Apr 2019Partly Allowed
Also relies on Sasisri Extractions Ltd. v. ACIT
The Tribunal upheld the deletion of commission disallowance, stating the AO made an ad hoc disallowance without proper verification. It held the subsidy received to encourage industrial development was a capital receipt.
More judgments on Section 43(1)
- Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata vs A.C.I.T., Circle - 4(1), KolkataITA 1604/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2020-2021
- Ceat Limited, Mumbai vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income-Tax…ITA 8146/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Tata Communications Ltd, Mumbai vs DCIT 1(3)(2), MumbaiITA 977/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- DCIT 1(3)(2), Mumbai vs Tata Communications Ltd, MumbaiITA 830/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2011-12
- ACIT Central Circle 1(4), Mumbai vs Grasim Industries Ltd, MumbaiITA 6530/MUM/2026[2003-04]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2026AY 2003-04
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026