PCIT v. Nestle India Ltd. (2023) 457 ITR 216 / 294 Taxman 397 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 4 : Charge of income-tax-Subsidy from State Government-Incentive given to establish an industrial unit in a backward area-Capital receipt-No adjustment could be made to actual cost. [S. 32, 43(1)]

Held that subsidy received by assessee was an incentive given to establish an industrial unit in a backward area and, thus, generate employment for local inhabitants, said subsidy which is a capital receipt. Subsidy was not intended as a payment to meet, directly or indirectly, a part of cost of assets, no adjustment could be made to actual cost while allowing the depreciation.   (A.Y. 2009-10)