← 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)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

assessee. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 12.2 By virtue of sec.73 of the I.T. Act, 'Speculation Business/transactions' [Explanation 2 to Section 28 and section 43(5)] means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically and ultimately settled, otherwise ... transactions are not connected to the business but are from speculative activities. It is further submitted of Ld. AR that as per section 43(5)(e), the transactions undertaken by the assessee is an eligible transaction and shall not be deemed as speculative transactions and, therefore, the provisions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

assessee. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. 12.2 By virtue of sec.73 of the I.T. Act, 'Speculation Business/transactions' [Explanation 2 to Section 28 and section 43(5)] means a transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sale of any commodity, including stocks and shares, is periodically and ultimately settled, otherwise ... transactions are not connected to the business but are from speculative activities. It is further submitted of Ld. AR that as per section 43(5)(e), the transactions undertaken by the assessee is an eligible transaction and shall not be deemed as speculative transactions and, therefore, the provisions

Amol Capital Markets Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO 4(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 783/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhamol Capital Markets Vs. Ito 4(1)(1) Private Limited Room No. 636, Aayakar A-106, Motalibai Wadia Bhavan, M.K. Road, Bldg, 22-D Sa Brelvi Mumbai - 400020 Street, Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcs8022N Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Rahul Hakani Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 03.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Solitary Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Action Of Assessing Officer Of Denying Set Off Of Profit Of F. & O. Transactions & Profit Of Non-Delivery Based Share Against Brought Forward Business Loss. 2. Fact In Brief Is That Return Of Income Declaring Income At Rs.Nil Was Filed On 25.09.2014. The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed On 15.12.2016. The Assessing Officer Has Treated The Brought Forward Loss On The Trading Of F & O As Speculative Loss By Invoking Explanation To Sec. 73 Of The Act & Has Not Allowed The Same To Be Set

For Appellant: Rahul HakaniFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73

P a g e | 1 Amol Capital Markets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 4(1)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE

Anidhi Impex P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 4(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhanidhi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dy. Comm. Of It-4(1) C/O Asj & Company Llp, Room No. 638, Aaykar 201, Rajshila, 597, Jss Bhavan, Churchgate, Road, Near Marine Lines, Mumbai – 400020 Mumbai – 400 002 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaeca7748J Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : Amit Porwal Respondent By : Manoj Kumar Sinha Date Of Hearing 18.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 14.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-8, Mumbai, Dated 21.03.2013 For A.Y. 2009- 10. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Concise Ground Of Appeal Vide Letter Dated 26.03.2019: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of A.O. Of Treating The Loss Of Rs.1,84,26,264/- Incurred On Mcx Transactions As Speculative Loss U/S 43 (5) Of The Income Tax Act. 1961. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Relating To Disallowance Of Expenses Rs. 7,851/; & Rs.1,62,819/- Incurred On Security Transaction Tax & Other Charges Of Mcx Respectively, Considered By The A.O. As Speculative. 3. Cit (A) Erred In Not Adjudicating The Ground Relating To The Disallowance Of Expenses Of Rs. 10,00,000/- By The A.O. On Estimation & Ad Hoc Basis Stating As Related To The Mcx Transactions & Hence Speculative In Nature, Without Even Confronting The Appellant Of This Proposed Action By Issuing Show Cause.

For Appellant: Amit PorwalFor Respondent: Manoj Kumar Sinha
Section 143(2)Section 43Section 43(5)Section 73

P a g e | 1 Anidhi Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT-4(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A

Varun Batra, Mumbai vs. CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 3175/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3175/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Varun Batra बिधम/ National Faceless Appeal Flat 5, 5Th Floor, La Mer, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Vs. Mistry Park, Kadeshwari Temple Road, Bandra West, Mumbai-400040. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aezpb9157L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 23.08.2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though, The Matter Was Listed For Seven (7) Times, No One Represented/Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. However, We Find That Written Submission Has Been Filed On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, After Hearing The Ld. Dr & After Perusal Of The Written Submission, We Proceed To Dispose Off This Appeal. The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Is Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Ao By Which The Assessee’S Claim Of Loss Of Rs.15,23,598/- To Be Set-Off Against The Income From Other Heads (Apart From Salary) Was Disallowed By The Ao.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Vranda U Matkari (Sr. AR)
Section 2Section 43(5)

loss. In this regard, we would like to the draw your attention towards the 3 A.Y. 2013-14 Varun Batra provisions of the section 43(5) of Income Tax Act, 1961 which have been reproduced as under: - (5) “speculative transaction” means a transaction in which a contract for the purpose ... question raised by your good self is whether this loss is a business loss or a speculative loss.” 6. And thereafter reproduced section 43(5) of the Act and then explained as under: - “On the perusal of the definition of “speculative transaction” read with the 1st Proviso and 2nd explanation