← All Phrases

“Section 43(5)”

Section References (mined)Section 43Section 43(5)238 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 43(5) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 43(5)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

DCIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
88 ITD 273 · 2004 · ITAT
169
citing judgments

Interest, sales tax, and purchase tax subsidies received by an assessee are generally considered capital receipts, not revenue income, for income tax purposes.

Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 792 · 1997 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital, such as expenses related to issuing shares or an initial public offering (IPO), is capital expenditure. Such expenses are not allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37, even if they incidentally benefit the business, because they result in an increase in capital.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Brothers
400 ITR 279 · 2018 · Supreme Court
136
citing judgments

A subsidy is classified as a capital receipt if its object is to enable the assessee to set up or expand a new or existing unit. Conversely, it is a revenue receipt if its purpose is to help the assessee run the business more profitably.

CIT v. Rittal India (P) Limited
380 ITR 423 · 2016 · High Court
121
citing judgments

Additional depreciation is allowable under section 32(1)(iia) for new machinery or plant even when put to use for less than 180 days, with the unabsorbed balance available for claim in the subsequent year.

CIT v. Badridas Gauridu (P) Ltd.
261 ITR 256 · 2003 · High Court
114
citing judgments

Losses incurred from foreign exchange forward contracts or derivatives, entered into to hedge currency fluctuations in the course of regular business like exports, are treated as business losses and not as speculative transactions under Section 43(5). Such contracts, when incidental to business and cover exchange rate risks, constitute a business activity.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Judgments citing Section 43(5)

Kalpana Mishra, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 491/CTK/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack28 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Manish Agarwalआयकर अपील संसंसंसं/Ita No.491/Ctk/2024 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) वष" Kalpana Mishra, Vs Ito Ward-5(4), Bhubaneswar Plot No.B-87/A, Chandaka Industrial Estate, Patia, Bhubaneswar-751024 Pan No. :Alfpm 2864 E (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" /Appellant) अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ" ""यथ" / Respondent) ""यथ" .. िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" िनधा"रती िनधा"रती क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Assessee By ओर : Shri B.R.Pattnaik, Ca राज"व राज"व क" राज"व राज"व क" क" ओर क" ओर ओर सेसेसेसे /Revenue By ओर : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/01/2025 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.03.2024, Passed By The Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023- 24/1062168195(1) For The Assessment Year 2016-2017, On The Following Grounds :- 1. Hon'Ble Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Action Of The Learned Ao Even Though The Learned Ao Has Exceeded His Jurisdiction In A Limited Scrutiny Case Selected Under Cass Only To Examine Whether The Investment & Income Relating To Securities Transactions Are Duly Disclosed Or Not & Added A Sum Of Rs.44,00,000.00 U/S 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Without Obtaining Prior Administrative Approval Of The Concerned Pr. Cit/Cit As Prescribed In Circular F. No. 225/402/2018/Ita.Ii, Dated 28- 11-2018 & Instruction No.5/2016 [F.No.225/269/2015-

Section 68

settled otherwise than by the actual delivery or transfer of such shares, then such transaction is called a speculative transaction as per section 43(5). 3.1.8. As per Explanation 2 to section 28, where speculative transactions carried on by an assessee are of such a nature as to constitute

Money Magnum Constructions, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 27, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2445/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Money Magnum Constructions Pr. Cit, Circle-27 Room No. 401, 4Th Floor, Plot No. 157 Samruddhi, 18Th Road, Near Ambedkar Garden, Tower No. 6, Vashi Railway Station, Vs. Chembur (E), Mumbai-400 071 Commercial Complex, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400 703. Pan/Gir No. Aacfn 9126 C (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Paresh Shaparia : Ms.Sanyogita Nagpal Respondent By : 09.09.2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pcit, Mumbai-27 (‘Ld. Pcit For Short), Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Relevant To Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal: I. “Order Passed Under Section 263 Is Bad In Law: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr. Cit 27 Erred In Treating The Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Dated 24 March 2022 (Re-Assessment Order) As Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thereby Setting Aside The Order. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit 27 Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Original Assessment Order As Well As Re- Assessment Order Have Duly Considered The Transaction Of Nsel Commodity Loss Of Rs

For Appellant: Shri. Paresh ShapariaFor Respondent: 09.09.2024
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 40A(2)(b)

assessee was not a beneficiary of the said scam. The ld. DR iterated that the entire submission of the assessee was merely on Section 43(5)(e) of the Act and the assessee has failed to give any reply pertaining to the Client Code Modification which is the main crux

M/S. Coastal Energy Private Limited Represented by Liquidator, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1366/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were not hedging transactions but the same were speculative and therefore the assessee's case is not covered by proviso to (a) to section 43(5) of the Act. The AO has further held that the finding rendered in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case ... underlying security permitted to be traded on the stock exchange and settled otherwise than by actual delivery would be speculative transactions under Section 43(5) of the Act, would be apply to the facts of assessee's case and disallowed the same. 10.5 On the other hand, the assessee submitted

M/S. Coastal Energy Private Limited Represented by Liquidator, Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue for the assessment year 2008-09 is dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-

ITA 1365/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1363/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Assistant Commissioner Of Coastal Energy Private Limited Income Tax, Central Circle -1(1) V. (Under Official Liquidator), No.46, M.G. Road, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Nungambakkam, Street, Purasawakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 007. [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 1364, 1365 & 1366/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 Coastal Energy Private Limited Deputy Commissioner Of Income (Under Official Liquidator), V. Tax, Old No.22, New No.28, Menod Corporate Circle -1(2), Chennai. Street, Purasawakkam, (Now Assessed By Assistant Chennai – 600 007. Commissioner Of Income, [Pan: Aaacc-4160-A] Central Circle -1(1), Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. B. Ramakrishnan, Fca Assessee By Department By : Shri. A. Sasikumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.09.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Respondent: Shri. A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

were not hedging transactions but the same were speculative and therefore the assessee's case is not covered by proviso to (a) to section 43(5) of the Act. The AO has further held that the finding rendered in the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case ... underlying security permitted to be traded on the stock exchange and settled otherwise than by actual delivery would be speculative transactions under Section 43(5) of the Act, would be apply to the facts of assessee's case and disallowed the same. 10.5 On the other hand, the assessee submitted