“Section 43(6)”

Section References (mined)Section 43Section 43(6)257 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 43(6) is Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd. (363 ITR 658), cited in 91 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 43(6)

Union of India v. Tata Chemicals Ltd.

363 ITR 658 · 2014 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Department has a moral and legal obligation to refund excess tax collected from taxpayers, along with interest. An assessee is entitled to interest on the amount of taxes refunded, including interest on interest, as per Section 244A of the Income-tax Act.

Joint Commissioner. 10. In Shin Etsu Chemical Co. Ltd. v. Aksh Optifibre Ltd.

7 SCC 234 · 2005 · Reported

citing judgments

A statute prescribing a procedure using negative language (e.g., 'in no other manner') imposes absolute requirements, and failure to comply will invalidate the entire proceeding.

Sharp Business System v. CIT III

27 Taxmann.com 50 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

A non-compete fee, being a capital expenditure, is not allowable as a deduction from income and does not qualify for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Sharp Business System v. CIT

254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court

citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

Madhav Rao Jivaji Rao Scindia Bahadur v. Union of India

3 SCR 9 · 1971 · Reported

citing judgments

A word, clause, or sentence from a court judgment, when taken out of context, does not represent a complete exposition of the law on a question that the judgment did not explicitly address.

Marketing Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

122 Taxmann.com 40 · 2020 · Reported

citing judgments

Where goodwill is recorded pursuant to a merger based on purchase consideration determined by a valuation report, and no goodwill is transferred from the predecessor's books, the fifth proviso to section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is not applicable, and thus depreciation on such goodwill is not allowable.

United Breweries Ltd. v. ACIT

76 Taxmann.com 103 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Depreciation on goodwill arising from amalgamation is not admissible to the amalgamated company if no goodwill was admitted in the hands of the amalgamating company, applying Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and the Sixth Proviso to Section 32(1)(ii).

194 Taxman 43 (Delhi) (ii) The Pr. CIT, Central-1 v. Adamine Construction (P.) Ltd.

99 Taxmann.com 45 · 2018 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Where the Assessing Officer (AO) does not conduct any further inquiry or investigation to support additions made, and there is no positive evidence to confirm the AO's action, additions under section 68 cannot be sustained if the loan transaction was properly documented and repaid through banking channels.

Judgments citing Section 43(6)

Sunbeam Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4378/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Dble & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year: 2011-12 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Addl. Cit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Range-9, New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Addl. Cit Vs. Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Special Range-8, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Room No. 199A, New Delhi 110 017 C.R. Building, Pan Aabcs2948F New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sunbeam Auto Ltd. Vs. Dcit, S-323, Panchsheel Park, Circle-24(2) New Delhi 110 017 New Delhi. Pan Aabcs2948F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Shashi M Kapila, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 264Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

assessee’s application, holding that the subsidy was revenue receipt. Alternatively, the Ld. Pr. CIT also held that the Explanation 10 to section 43(6) was applicable. 5.2 The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee filed writ petition before the Hon’ble Delhi High Court

M/S. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. The Pr. Comm of Income Tax, Mumbai-6

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1439/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2022AY 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 32Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35Section 43(6)

value (WDV) thereof, as 6 M/s. Croda India Company Pvt. Ltd. may be prescribed. The assessee also placed reliance on the provisions of section 43(6) of the Act which defines WDV as under:- “Section 43(6) - „Written Down Value‟ means (a) in the case of assets acquired ... shall be deemed to be the depreciation actually allowed under this Act.” 5.1.1. Hence it could be seen that the entire provisions of section 43(6) of the Act together with its various Explanations only uses the expression ‘depreciation actually allowed’. Since assessee has started claiming depreciation on Goodwill from

Mahavir Ghar Sansar Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 1(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 141/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Ito-1(1)(1), Mahavir Ghar Sansar Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Private Limited, बिधम/ Road, Mumbai-400 020 19 Raj Mahal, 84, Veer Vs. Nariman Road, Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaacs7170C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 22.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 18.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 01.12.2021, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 For Ay 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair, Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32(1)(ii)

provisions-5th proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43 (1) and/or Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) which were relevant to the issue in hand, given the fact 6 I.T.A. No. 141/Mum/2022 Mahavir Ghar

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 4(1)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Lifestyle International Private Limited, Bangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands allowed and revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 93/BANG/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Lifestyle International Pvt. Ltd., 77, Town Centre, The Deputy Building No. 3, Commissioner Of West Wing, Income Tax, Off Hal Airport Road, Circle – 4(1)(1), Yamlur, Vs. Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 037. Pan: Aaacl2937J Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue)

Section 2Section 37Section 43(6)(c)Section 50B

purpose of computing capital gains. 1.9. The learned CIT(A) upheld the order of the learned AO and has considered section 43(6)(c)(ii) of the Act instead of section 43(6)(c)(i)(c) of the Act, as specifically stated under section ... 93/Bang/2020 Rs 4,49,31,206. Further, WDV of the addition should be arrived at as determined under section 43(6)(c)(ii) while the accountant has determined the value u/s 43(6)(c)(i)(C). In view of the above arguments it is doubtful that the company has transferred

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as stated above

ITA 7644/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Novartis India Limited Addl. Cit, Range 7(1) V. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sandoz House, Dr. Annie Besant Road Worli, Mumbai - 400018 Mumbai Pan: Aaach2914F Appellant Respondent Assessee Represented By : Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Pranay Gandhi Revenue Represented By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav

Section 144C(5)Section 35DSection 92C(2)

which issued shares to the shareholders of the assessee to preserve their wealth. The assets were retained in the block of assets under section 43(6)(c) of the Act, which provides for reduction of 'money's payable' in respect of sale, discardment or destruction only. The term 'money ... stand allowed whereas Ground No.1 of revenue’s appeal stand dismissed. 22. We intended to follow the same, however, we considered reading the section 43(6) of the Act and observe that as per provisions contained in section 43(6)(c) with regard to block of assets, it says that

Maharashtra Steels Rolling Mills P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-35, Mumbai

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

ITA 5058/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Parida/Ms. KiranFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. AR)

Section 14A

income-tax purposes, the entire sale consideration received on sale of fixed assets is adjusted from the block of assets in terms of Section 43(6) read with Section 32 of the Act and only if the block ceases to exist, then the positive/negative figure remaining therein, is taxable ... noted that the gross sale consideration (including the profit element embedded therein) was adjusted from the block of assets in accordance with Section 43(6) of the Act. Since the block of asset did not cease to exist, there was no charge of capital tax arising in terms

Atos It Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 226/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, CAFor Respondent: Shri Bijoy Kumar Panda, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92B(2)Section 92C

existing with the company before a slump sale in view of provisions of explanation 7 to section 43(1) and explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c).” 28. The DRP confirmed the disallowance. IT(TP)A No.226/Bang/2021 Page 21 of 25 29. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee ... allowable claim. The ld. AR further submitted that the AO has invoked Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and Explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) which are not applicable to the assessee’s case and submitted that the coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the above referred cases have

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 10(3), Mumbai

In the result, all the three additional grounds mentioned above are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2701/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Section 43(6)(c)

Goodwill purchased from Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd., pursuant to slump sale, as the written down value for the purposes of section 43(6)(c)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('IT Act') and consequently, erred in not allowing depreciation amounting to Rs.18,73,52,790 on the above written down

ACIT 13 (3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Zelle Biotechnology Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 7675/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bleacit-13(3)(2) V. M/S. Zelle Biotechnology Pvt. Ltd., Room No. 229/219, 2Nd Floor 110, Udyog Bhavan Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Sonawala Road, Goregaon (E) Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400063 Pan: Aaacz2106R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Meet Shah Department By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani

For Appellant: Shri Meet ShahFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 32Section 32(1)

deleting the addition of Rs. 4,62,73,763/- without appreciating the Explanation 7 of section 43(1) and Explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Act clearly lays down that the actual cost of the block of asset (intangible block in this case ... case of CIT v. SMIFS Securities Limited (supra) not appreciating the Explanation given in Explanation 7 of section 43(1) and Section 43(6)(c) and Explanation 2 of the Act and deleting the addition without appreciating the decision of the ITAT in the case of United Breweries

Jsw Steel Limited, Mumbai vs. Addlcit, Bangalore

858/M/2011

ITA 858/BANG/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Amarjit Singh () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Jsw Steel Limited, The Addl. Cit, Range 11, Jindal Mansion, 5A, Vs. Bangalore. Dr. G. Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 Dc. Cc.46, M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., R.No. 659, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Vs. Jindal Mansion, 5-A, Dr. G Bhavan, M.K. Road, Deshmukh Marg, Mumbai-20. Mumbai-400026. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S Jsw Steel Ltd., Dcit, Central Circle 46, Jsw Centre, Bandra Kurla Vs. 6Th Flr., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Complex, Road, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaacj 4323 N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Danesh Bafna &For Respondent: Mr. Achal Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 14ASection 37(1)

unabsorbed depreciation, i.e depreciation not given effect to, in the assessment of the amalgamating companies. The provisions of Explanation (2) and (3) to section 43(6), which explains what, will be the WDV of assets in the hands of amalgamated company, in the cases of amalgamation. Similarly, section ... loss and unabsorbed depreciation in the hands of the amalgamated company in the cases of amalgamation. If you go through, Explanation (2) to section 43(6), it is very clear that the word used therein speaks about depreciation ‘actually allowed’ in relation to said preceding year in case of amalgamated

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 50B

assets’ by providing that in case of depreciable assets it shall be the written down value of block of assets determined as per section 43(6) and in case of other assets, their book value. Special care has been taken to ensure that it is the book value

M/S. Altimetrik India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2511/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)

depreciation on Goodwill is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Explanation 7 to section 43(1), read with Explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) read with sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act. 2.3. The Hon'ble DRP and learned AO has erred ... assessee’s claim is not in accordance with the provisions contained in Explanation 7 to section 43(1) read with Explanation 2 to section 43(6)(c) of the Act read with sixth proviso to section 32(1) of the Act. The DRP however considered the submission of the assessee

Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 1, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands allowed in terms of

ITA 601/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2022AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 32(1)(i)

profit and loss account. It was further submitted that for the purpose of computing the income tax in terms of provisions of section 43(6) of the Act, the amount on sale consideration received on the sale of fixed assets was reduced from the Written Down Value

M/S Titanor Components Ltd vs. CIT & Anr

The appeals are dismissed

ITA - 190 / 2002HC Delhi22 Dec 2014

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 260A

assessee is that depreciation is to be allowed on the actual cost incurred and this is the mandate of Section 32 read with Section 43(6) and 43(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the surveyor‟s report was an internal document and cannot disturb and override

Commissioner of Income Tax-II vs. Mira Exim

ITA - 353 / 2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 394

while dealing with the contentions raised by the Revenue, has referred to Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6). However, learned Sr. Standing Counsel for the Revenue did not refer to these provisions and was lucid that he does not rely upon them ... allowed depreciation on the motor cars. 8. We have, however, examined Explanation 7 to-Section 43(1) •and Explanation 2(b) to Section 43(6). The two Explanations relate to computation of actual cost or written down value for the purpose of depreciation in cases of amalgamation. Section 43 falls

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - II vs. Mira Exim Ltd

ITA - 348 / 2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 394

Commissioner of Income Tax (C) - II vs. Mira Exim Ltd

ITA - 347 / 2013HC Delhi03 Oct 2013

Section 260ASection 32(1)Section 394