← All Phrases

“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
91
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
75
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
53
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
50
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
43
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
41
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
41
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
39
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)

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

TowerCos with the assessee undisputedly qualified as an „amalgamation', as defined under section 2(1B) of the Act, as per Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, the tax WDV of the PIAs in the hands of the TowerCos became the actual cost of such assets

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

TowerCos with the assessee undisputedly qualified as an „amalgamation', as defined under section 2(1B) of the Act, as per Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, the tax WDV of the PIAs in the hands of the TowerCos became the actual cost of such assets

Indus Towers Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1962/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

TowerCos with the assessee undisputedly qualified as an „amalgamation', as defined under section 2(1B) of the Act, as per Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act, the tax WDV of the PIAs in the hands of the TowerCos became the actual cost of such assets

Dow Chemical International Private Limited, Thane vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 3772/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Dow Chemicals International Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Ta-14(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1200/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. AR /
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

3A Composites India Private Limied, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 11(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4096/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 50C

without appreciating that section 50C applies only for computation of capital gains and not for determining value of block of assets under section 43(6). 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding disallowance of deprecation of expenses of Rs.89,03,154 made by the ld. A.O. on adhoc basis ... accept the contention of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) referred to the definition of the written down value provided in section 43(6) of the Act, wherein the definition of the 'moneys payable' is defined. According to the ld. CIT(A), the amount payable should be read

DCIT 1 (1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Hindustan Unilever Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6913/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 80HSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R

Hindusthan Unilever Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Range 1(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee and Revenue are partly

ITA 6783/MUM/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Nov 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang & Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Shri Nishant Thakkar a/wFor Respondent: Shri Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 80HSection 80I

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “H”, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) SHRI C.V. BHADANG, PRESIDENT AND SHRI B.R

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 303/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

fifth 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) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under

The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 302/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

fifth 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) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 199/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

fifth 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) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under

Suzlon Energy Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the Ground Nos

ITA 198/AHD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

fifth 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) have already been discussed and established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under

Nutech Engineering Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle-10(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the appellant is dismissed

ITA 952/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 50

claim deduction of the written down value of the asset in respect of which depreciation was claimed in any year as defined under Section 43(6) of the Act towards cost of acquisition within the meaning of sections 48 and 49 of the Act. The condition for computation of short

Sgb Brandsafway Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle -3 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 84/HYD/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: C.A. K.C. Devdas, C.A. P. Kranthi & C.AFor Respondent: : Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)

fixed assets. He further submitted that the capital gains on sale of fixed assets are to be calculated as per the provisions of section 43(6) and section 50 of the Act. He submitted that as per the provisions of the Act, the sale proceeds of the fixed assets

M/S. Ritu Housing Ltd, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee isallowed

ITA 185/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata30 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 32Section 43(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member I.T.A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore vs. Commander Industries Private Limited, Indore

ITA 24/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore25 Oct 2024AY 2020-21
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 47

assessment order in view of 5th proviso to section 32(1) r.w explanation -7 of section 43(1) and explanation -2 to section 43(6)(c) of the Act. The AO has held that when the goodwill was not shown in the books of the amalgamating companies then the claim

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan vs. Coffer Construction Technology Pvt. Ltd., Tardeo

ITA 3046/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar & Shri Rohan Deshpande, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar, Sr. D/R
Section 115JSection 3(4)Section 43(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण न्यायपीठ, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON

Prasidh Fincap Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1534/DEL/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

only interest income as its business income. Such income cannot be shifted from business income to other sources. We find that as per Section 43(6) of the Act, the value of Written Down Value (WDV) of the assets shall be calculated based on the original cost of the assets ... Doom Dooma India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 392 (SC) wherein, the Apex court held as under:- “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7966/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

only interest income as its business income. Such income cannot be shifted from business income to other sources. We find that as per Section 43(6) of the Act, the value of Written Down Value (WDV) of the assets shall be calculated based on the original cost of the assets ... Doom Dooma India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 392 (SC) wherein, the Apex court held as under:- “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed

Prasidh Fincap Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7965/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Oct 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarprasidh Fincap Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Rsn Arcade, 6 Circle-20(1), Lsc, Near Peince New Delhi Apartment, Ip Extension, Parparganj, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aaacp6704D

For Appellant: Shri I. P. Bansal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 32

only interest income as its business income. Such income cannot be shifted from business income to other sources. We find that as per Section 43(6) of the Act, the value of Written Down Value (WDV) of the assets shall be calculated based on the original cost of the assets ... Doom Dooma India Ltd reported in 310 ITR 392 (SC) wherein, the Apex court held as under:- “8. The key word in section 43(6)(b) of the 1961 Act is "actually". We quote hereinbelow an important observation, made by this Court on the meaning of the words "actually allowed