← All Phrases

“Section 10(43)”

Section References (mined)Section 10Section 10(43)1 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 10(43) is Escorts Ltd. v. UOI (199 ITR 43), cited in 267 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 10(43)

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.

CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
14 Taxmann 99 · 1983 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Club entrance fees, if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). Furthermore, an order holding a deductor liable for TDS defaults under Section 201 must be preceded by an inquiry into the deductee's actual tax payment.

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.

Pr. CIT v. Welspun Steel Ltd.
264 Taxmann 252 · 2019 · High Court
64
citing judgments

Payments made to meet any portion of the actual cost, as contemplated under Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, are eligible for consideration.

CIT v. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd.
35 Taxmann.com 280 · 2013 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Loss incurred by certain types of companies in trading derivatives is considered speculative loss under the Explanation to Section 73, as the value of stock derivatives depends on shares. Such speculative losses are ineligible for set-off or carry forward against business income.

CIT v. Deepak Kumar Garg
299 ITR 435 · 2008 · High Court
45
citing judgments

An assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue when the Assessing Officer conducts a mere semblance of inquiry or accepts the assessee's claims without proper investigation, leading to substantial taxable income not being brought to tax.

Cartini India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT & Anr.
314 ITR 275 · 2009 · High Court
34
citing judgments

Reopening an assessment based on a mere change of opinion, without any tangible material, is invalid. The Assessing Officer cannot withdraw an issue after considering the assessee's reply and then re-open the case on the same grounds.

Birla Corporation Ltd. v. DCIT
55 Taxmann.com 33 · 2015 · ITAT
34
citing judgments

A subsidy received by an assessee for acquiring depreciable fixed assets cannot be reduced from the actual cost or written-down value (WDV) of those assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation. The subsidy itself is to be treated as capital receipt.

Judgments citing Section 10(43)