Allowing the appeal the Court held that Explanation 10 to section 43 was not retrospective in operation. Even otherwise the financial assistance received by the assessee from the Government under the Scheme was not asset specific. Therefore, Explanation 10 per se was not attracted to the case of the assessee. However, by application of the proviso to Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act the actual cost had to be apportioned and reduced from the cost of the assets of the assessee for the purpose of computing the depreciation. Therefore, the order of assessment had to be set aside to the extent that the subsidy was apportioned against all the assets, viz., building, furniture and plant and machinery, computer software. The adjustment at best could be against the assets which received the addition from financial assistance received under the Scheme. Therefore, in so far as the AY 2009-10 was concerned, the inclusion of the financial assistance received up to March 31, 1999 was incorrect. Therefore by excluding the assistance received up to March 31, 1999 the balance financial assistance, i.e., Rs.1,51,00,000 received needed to be reworked. Matter remitted to assessing authority. To the limited extent of financial assistance received after April 1, 1999, the assessee was given liberty to file a statement on utilisation of assistance for capacity building of assets in the subject AYs. (AY. 2008-09, 2009-10)