← All Phrases

“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)

Cypress Semiconductor Technology India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 630/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.630/Bang/2021 : Asst.Year 2016-2017 M/S.Cypress Semiconductor The Deputy Commissioner Of Technology India Private Limited Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bangalore. No.65/2, Begmane Laurel, C Block, Bagmane Tech Park C.V.Raman Nagar Bangalore – 560 093. Pan : Aabcc2470Q. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Sumit Khurana, Ca Respondent By : Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 27.07.2022 Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 25.09.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2016-2017. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Five Grounds Before The Tribunal. However, During The Course Of Hearing The Learned Ar Had Argued Only Two Grounds, Namely, Ground 2 & Ground 3. Ground 2 & 3 Argued By The Learned Ar Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Sri.Sumit Khurana, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT-DR
Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 37(1)Section 40

basis of, any such profits or gains. If the word `tax’ is to be given the meaning assigned to it by section 2(43), the word `any’ used before it will be otiose and the further qualification as to the nature of levy will also become meaningless. Furthermore, the word ... defined in section 2(43) is subject to `unless the context otherwise requires’. In that view of the matter, the words `any tax’ in section 40(a)(ii) includes cess. For the aforesaid reasons, the submission of the learned AR is rejected. Since the cess is not an allowable deduction