Held that the expression moneys payable should refer to the amount over which the assessee got a right to receive. When the assessee made insurance claim of Rs. 22.44 crores, it was merely a claim only and the assessee did not acquire any right to receive the same. Hence, the assessee was not right in reducing the amount of Rs. 22.44 crores from the WDV in asst. yr. 2001-02. The assessee should have reduced the moneys payable for destruction of asset as finally determined as payable by the insurance company. The insurance claim of Rs. 22.44 crores was rejected, but a claim of Rs. 8 crores was granted to the then parent company by the insurance company. Said amount of Rs. 8 crores would be the moneys payable for destruction of asset and the same is required to be reduced from the WDV in asst. yr. 2001-02. WDV of asst. yr. 2005-06 should be recomputed accordingly from asst. yr. 2001-02 onwards. Depreciation for asst. yr. 2005-06 should accordingly be allowed on the enhanced WDV. The net result is that the WDV of the block should be increased by Rs. 14.44 crores in asst. yr. 2001-02 and the WDV of asst. yr. 2005-06 should be arrived at accordingly. Tribunal also held that amount of State Capital investment subsidy received from the State Government under West Bangal Incentive Scheme, 2000  is not required to be deducted from the WDV for the purpose of computing depreciation.  (AY. 2005-06)