M/S KISHANGARH HI TECH TEXTILE PARK LTD.,KISHANGARH vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TECH), AJMER

PDF · subscribers
ITA 328/JPR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 December 2019AY 2014-1520 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

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?

Section 43(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show 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.

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

For Appellant: Shri S. S. Nagar (C.A) jktLo dh vksj ls@
Hearing: 26/11/2019Pronounced: 11/12/2019

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत

More judgments on Section 43(1)

All 613 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →