“Section 2(43)”

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)

DCIT 5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Air India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee

ITA 4484/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Baskaran Br, Accountat Member & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal.ARFor Respondent: Smt Sailaja Rai, CIT DR

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTAT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL

Zoho Corporation Private Limited, Kancheepuram vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai

ITA 2957/CHNY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 40Section 90

fall in the purview of section 40(a)(ii) is far from satisfactory. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee informed that section 2(43) of the act defines tax as a “tax in relation to the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1965, and any subsequent assessment

Iifl Samasta Finance Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 1054/BANG/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(7)Section 270A(8)Section 40Section 43

penalty under Section 270A. The Ld. Assessing Officer has specified in page-16 of the order that the word tax as defined in section 2(43) is subject to unless the context otherwise requires, in that view of the mater, the words any tax in section 40(a) (ii) includes

M/S. Oriental Components Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1)2, Mumbai

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

ITA 568/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Gagan Goyal & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhoriental Electrical Components Pvt. Ltd., 75Ab, Government Industrial Estate, Ganesh Nagar, Charkop, Kandivali West Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaaco7101M ...... Appellant Vs. Dcit-13(1) (2) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Umang Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(43)Section 234ASection 234BSection 246ASection 250

that the interest charged under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act does not come under the definition of “tax” as per section 2(43) of the Act and that no appeal can be filed against the quantum of such interest chargeable under

Dy. CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for A

ITA 3083/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dy CIT Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by assessee and Revenue for

ITA 3063/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dy CIT Circle 3(4), Mumbai vs. Asian Paints, Mumbai

ITA 2936/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 2, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2700/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ltu Circle 1, Cuffe Parade

ITA 2697/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Asian Paints Limited, Santacruz vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

ITA 2696/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(43)Section 35Section 40Section 50Section 80GSection 90

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S Wipro Limited, Bnagalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Special Range-7, Bangalore

ITA 3115/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

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 not even urged by the Revenue that the context of Section

M/S. Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 492/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. andFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2851/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubeyit(Tp)A No.99/Bang/2014

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. andFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 90(1)(b)Section 91

M/S Wipro Limited, Bangalore vs. Asst.C.I.T., Bangalore

ITA 222/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. A.R. and Sri Sandeep Huilgol, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R

Section 37(1)Section 90Section 91

IT(TP)A No.99/Bang/2014, IT(TP)A NO.398/Bang/2015, IT(TP)A No.222/Bang/2016, IT(TP)A Nos.492 & 2851/Bamg/2017 & IT(TP)A

Demi Realtors, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 156/HYD/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Feb 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Respondent: Ms. T. Vijaya Lakhsmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 40a

also contended that the self-assessment tax does not include ‘interest’ by relying on definition of word ‘tax’ and ‘interest’ as defined in sections 2(43) and section 2 (28A) of the Act. The Appellant, accordingly, contended that the demand already paid covers the tax component and accordingly there ... second round of appeal proceedings, apart from the above adjustment, the Appellant has take a fresh ground that tax as defined under section 2(43) does not include as defined under section 2(28A) of the Act, and therefore since the tax component was already paid, the appeal should

ACIT(Central)-1, Indore vs. Shri Punit Agrawal, Mhow

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 791/IND/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore31 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shrib.M. Biyani

Section 132Section 153ASection 269SSection 269TSection 271DSection 271E

however, his liability is restricted to the “tax” and it cannot be enlarged to the “penalty”. The word “Tax” has been defined in Section 2(43) of the Income Tax Act which does not include a penalty. Even Section 271D or 271E makes that person who has taken or paid