Which cases are most cited on Section 2(43)?

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) — 577 citing judgments; CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd. (348 ITR 302) — 540 citing judgments; Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT (228 ITR 253) — 429 citing judgments; Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43) — 267 citing judgments; M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO (43 Taxmann.com 33) — 262 citing judgments.

How many judgments discuss Section 2(43)?

BharatTax indexes 97 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that discuss Section 2(43) (Section 2(43)).

← All Phrases

“Section 2(43)”

Q: What is the leading case on Section 2(43)?

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392) is the decision most relied on for Section 2(43), cited in 577 judgments on BharatTax. The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(43)97 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(43) is CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392), cited in 577 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(43)

CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

306 ITR 392 · 2008 · Supreme Court

577

citing judgments

The "Purpose Test" determines whether an incentive or subsidy is a capital or revenue receipt for income tax purposes. If the incentive's purpose is to enable an assessee to set up a new industry or make investments in capital assets, it is a capital receipt and not taxable.

CIT v. Smifs Securities Ltd.

348 ITR 302 · 2012 · Supreme Court

540

citing judgments

Goodwill, whether arising from an amalgamation or a slump sale, is an intangible asset eligible for depreciation under Section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act. While the assessee must prove the existence and valuation of such goodwill, it is recognized as a depreciable asset.

Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT

228 ITR 253 · 1997 · Supreme Court

429

citing judgments

A subsidy is treated as a revenue receipt if the assessee is free to use the money in its business as it likes and is not obligated to spend it for a specific capital purpose, such as acquiring assets or repaying loans.

Escorts Ltd. v. UOI

199 ITR 43 · 1993 · Supreme Court

267

citing judgments

A statute should not be construed to permit double deduction for the same expenditure unless specifically provided by law.

M/s Mahadev Cold Storage v. Jurisdictional AO

43 Taxmann.com 33 · 2014 · High Court

262

citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds are an allowable deduction if paid before the due date for filing the income-tax return under section 139(1), even if the payment is made beyond the due date specified by the respective welfare fund Acts, as per the provisions of section 43B.

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.

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.

210 ITR 830 · 1994 · Supreme Court

158

citing judgments

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the conditions under which a capital subsidy received by an assessee should be reduced from the 'actual cost' of an asset for computing depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, depending on whether the subsidy directly meets the cost of the asset.

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.

Judgments citing Section 2(43)

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction, arguing that interest on income tax (under Sections 234B and 234C) forms part of "tax" as per Section 2(43) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be allowed as a deduction under Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, which prohibits the deduction ... business expense, and Section 40(a)(ii) bars the deduction of "any rate or tax levied" on profits. The AO's reliance on Section 2(43) to include interest within the definition of "tax" for the purpose of Section 40(a)(ii) is a generally accepted interpretation for the deductibility

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

taxes, which are not eligible for relief under section 90 of the Act and do not fall within the definition of “tax” under section 2(43) read with section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, are allowable as business expenditure. 39. On the contrary, the learned DR before us opposed

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 1(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Hindustan Unilever Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT-1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue and cross-objection by the

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80HSection 8O

No.1041 & 929/Mum/2018 & CO No.142/Mum/2019 (A.Ys. 2004-05) dividend distributed by payer company, being an additional tax is covered within 'Tax' as defined in Section 2(43) of Act and, hence, is chargeable as per Section 4, which is subject to other provisions, which include Section 90 and sub-clause (2

Sophos Technologies Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 466/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 92C

that DDT, is a levy on the dividend distributed by payer company, being an additional tax is covered within "Tax' as defined in Section 2(43) of Act and, hence, is chargeable as per Section 4, which is subject to other provisions, which include Section 90 and sub-clause (2

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3912/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

that DDT, is a levy on the dividend distributed by payer company. being an additional tax is covered within "Tax' as defined in Section 2(43) of Act and, hence, is chargeable as per Section 4, which is subject to other provisions, which include Section 90 and sub-clause (2

Mitsui Kinzoku Components Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3911/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

Mitsui Kinzoku Components India Pvt Ltd, Rewari vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Ward Two

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3910/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 115Section 143(3)Section 237Section 239

DCIT 2(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No 2(a) & (b) of the revenue in ITA No. 4109/Mum/2012, therefore stands dismissed

ITA 5690/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI ARUN KHODPIA (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

covered with in the meaning of Section 40(a) (ii) of the Act in view of the definition of the word 'tax' in Section 2(43) of the Act. To be covered by Section 40(a)(ii) of the Act, it has to be payable under ... preceding the definition with the word "In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires" the meaning of the word 'tax' as found in Section 2 (43) of the Act would apply wherever it occurs in the Act. It is 24 ITA No. 3157/MUM/2012, ITA No. 4109/MUM/2012 ITA No.5690/MUM/2015

Addl CIT 2(3), Mumbai vs. Tata Industries Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4109/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2025AY 2006-07

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)Section 37Section 40

DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Late Sama Ramachandra Reddy L/R by His Wife Sama Yashodha, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1611/HYD/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)

view of the aforesaid discussion and on reading the provisions of section 221 conjointly with the definition of “tax” as detailed under section 2(43), the irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the phraseology “tax in arrears” as envisaged in section 221 of the Act would not take

DCIT., Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Late Sama Ramachandra Reddy L/R by His Wife Sama Yashodha, Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are allowed

ITA 1065/HYD/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad26 Sept 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar

Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)Section 249(4)

Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya, Rajkot vs. ITO, Ward 1(1)(3), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 372/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 372/Rjt/ 2023 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) Lilavantiben Gordhanbhai Padariya Vs. Ito, Wd – 1(1)(3), Rajkot Vrajdham, Shardanagar Main Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Mabdi Road, Rajkot – 360001 Ring Road, Rajkot – 360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acgpp7067E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/09/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 09.09.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 04.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: 1. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Upholding Validity Of Assessment U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act. 2 The Learned Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Erred In Confirming Action Of Assessing Officer In Making Addition Of Rs. 1,11,13,196/- By Way Of Alleged Difference Between Sales As Per Annual Vat Return & Sales As Per Audited Accounts By Failing To Appreciate That The Alleged Difference Was Duly Reconciled & Explained.

For Appellant: Shri D. M. Rindani, Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA