← All Phrases

“Section 43(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 43Section 43(1)441 judgments

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD., NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4925/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

meeting the cost of fixed assets and, therefore was, required to be reduced from their cost in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. 4.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that capital subsidy of Rs.50 lakhs was: (a) received during the previous year relevant ... aforesaid capital subsidy ought to have been reduced to from the actual cost of fixed asset in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, and with this belief, the Assessing Officer computed the excess depreciation by reducing the actual cost by capital subsidy

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD., NOIDA

ITA 4924/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

meeting the cost of fixed assets and, therefore was, required to be reduced from their cost in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act.\n4.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that capital subsidy of Rs.50 lakhs was: (a) received during the previous year relevant ... aforesaid capital subsidy ought to have been reduced to from the actual cost of fixed asset in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, and with this belief, the Assessing Officer computed the excess depreciation by reducing the actual cost by capital subsidy

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD vs. AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD., NOIDA

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 4923/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

meeting the cost of fixed assets and, therefore was, required to be reduced from their cost in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. 4.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that capital subsidy of Rs.50 lakhs was: (a) received during the previous year relevant ... aforesaid capital subsidy ought to have been reduced to from the actual cost of fixed asset in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, and with this belief, the Assessing Officer computed the excess depreciation by reducing the actual cost by capital subsidy

AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3434/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

meeting the cost of fixed assets and, therefore was, required to be reduced from their cost in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. 4.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that capital subsidy of Rs.50 lakhs was: (a) received during the previous year relevant ... aforesaid capital subsidy ought to have been reduced to from the actual cost of fixed asset in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, and with this belief, the Assessing Officer computed the excess depreciation by reducing the actual cost by capital subsidy

AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3433/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

meeting the cost of fixed assets and, therefore was, required to be reduced from their cost in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. 4.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that capital subsidy of Rs.50 lakhs was: (a) received during the previous year relevant ... aforesaid capital subsidy ought to have been reduced to from the actual cost of fixed asset in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, and with this belief, the Assessing Officer computed the excess depreciation by reducing the actual cost by capital subsidy

AMRIT BANASPATI COMPANY LTD.,NOIDA vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , GHAZIABAD

Appeals are partly allowed in the foregoing terms

ITA 3432/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

meeting the cost of fixed assets and, therefore was, required to be reduced from their cost in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. 4.2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that capital subsidy of Rs.50 lakhs was: (a) received during the previous year relevant ... aforesaid capital subsidy ought to have been reduced to from the actual cost of fixed asset in terms of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, and with this belief, the Assessing Officer computed the excess depreciation by reducing the actual cost by capital subsidy

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 898/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

ignored the intricacies of 6th 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 established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under ... Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 897/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

ignored the intricacies of 6th 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 established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under ... Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising

ACIT CC-1(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 896/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

ignored the intricacies of 6th 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 established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under ... Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 895/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

ignored the intricacies of 6th 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 established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under ... Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 894/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

ignored the intricacies of 6th 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 established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under ... Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD vs. UNICORN PACKAGING LLP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is, accordingly, stands dismissed

ITA 893/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं/ िनधा"रण वष"/ Sl. Appeal(S) By :

For Appellant: Shri Aseem L. Thakkar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 32(1)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 49(1)(iii)Section 55(2)(a)

ignored the intricacies of 6th 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 established that Depreciation cannot be claimed on goodwill arising out of amalgamation under ... Assessing Officer also invoked the provisions of the fifth/sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), Explanation 7 to section 43(1), Explanation 2(b) to section 43(6)(c) and section 55(2)(a)(ii) to hold that no depreciation could be allowed on goodwill arising

ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), AHMEDABAD vs. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1842/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaasst. Commissioner Of M/S. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax, Corporate House, S.G. Highway, Central Circle 2(3), Nr. Sola Bridge, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380 054 [Pan : Aaaci 5120 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit (Dr) Respondent Represented By: Shri S. N. Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar Date Of Hearing 07.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 O R D E R Per Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble:-

Section 250

supported by a court-sanctioned scheme and a valuation report, and not merely by accounting jugglery. The CIT(A) distinguished Explanation 7 to section 43(1) and Explanation 2 to section 43(6) by observing that they apply to tangible assets transferred in amalgamation but not to goodwill which arises ... operational continuity — all recognized aspects of goodwill under law. Revised Ground No. 7: 65. The Department seeks to apply Explanation 7 to section 43(1), sixth proviso to section 32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), and Explanation 2 to section 43(6), asserting that the cost

RUBBER KING TYRE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD , GUJARAT vs. DCIT,3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD , GUJARAT

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

ITA 145/AHD/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Tr Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Years: 2017-18

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

disallowing depreciation on goodwill amounting to Rs.3.31,62,509/-on irrelevant grounds. The disallowance has been made wrongly by invoking Explanation-7 to section 43(1) and/or Explanation 2 (b) of section 43(6) as well as fifth proviso to section 32(1) and other provisions of Income

HAMEED MARINE PRIVATE LIMITED,EDALAKUDY, NAGERCOIL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGERCOIL, INCOME TAX OFFICE, NAGERCOIL

In the result, Grounds relating to validity of notice u/s 143(2) are dismissed

ITA 2317/CHNY/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: 12.01.2026
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

reduction of a liability to income-tax (by claiming depreciation with reference to an enhanced cost) as required under Explanation 3 to section 43(1). 5. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in determining the actual cost of the second hand machinery ... without taking the approval of the Addl/Joint CIT as required under Explanation 3 to section 43(1). 6. The learned CIT(A) ought to have known that the purchase of second hand machinery is genuine supported by proper vouchers, transport bills and VAT Paid details etc., 7. The appellant prays

UNITECH RESIDENTIAL RESORTS LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 4409/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 250

Nos.4408 & 4409/Del/2019 for computing the profit. It is always taken at cost price while computing the profit and gain of assessee. Even In section 43(1) of IT Act, where the 'actual cost' has been defined for the sections 28 to 41, it meant the actual cost of the assets

UNITECH REALITY PVT. LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE-27(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 4408/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 250

Nos.4408 & 4409/Del/2019 for computing the profit. It is always taken at cost price while computing the profit and gain of assessee. Even In section 43(1) of IT Act, where the 'actual cost' has been defined for the sections 28 to 41, it meant the actual cost of the assets

M/S. HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. PCIT-4, , CHENNAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 434/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 143(3)Section 254Section 263Section 43(1)

examination of the complete scheme and details of investment for quantification of subsidy; and • verification of applicability of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act, with a categorical direction to ascertain whether the subsidy was intended to offset the cost of acquisition of assets or merely to accelerate ... assessee’s claim that IPS amounting to Rs.33 crores was a capital receipt not chargeable to tax and that Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act was not applicable. 5. Subsequently, the Ld. PCIT initiated proceedings u/s.263 of the Act, alleging that the AO failed to properly examine

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

ITA 294/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22
For Appellant: \nShri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: \nShri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

noted that if the Assessing Officer had doubts\nregarding valuation, the correct course of action was to invoke\nExplanation 3 to section 43(1) and determine the actual cost of\nacquisition based on accepted valuation principles. The Assessing\nOfficer, however, did not undertake such an exercise and merely\nrejected ... Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 170 of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 32(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section 10AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961", "Section

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 293/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 250Section 254Section 37Section 90

noted that if the Assessing Officer had doubts regarding valuation, the correct course of action was to invoke Explanation 3 to section 43(1) and determine the actual cost of acquisition based on accepted valuation principles. The Assessing Officer, however, did not undertake such an exercise and merely rejected ... eligibility of intangible assets, expressed doubts regarding valuation. However, neither the Assessing Officer nor the learned CIT(A) has invoked Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act or undertaken any exercise to determine a different “actual cost” of the assets. There is also no finding that the assessee

Showing 1–20 of 441 · Page 1 of 23

...