← All Phrases

“Section 43(1)”

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

The decision most relied on for Section 43(1) is CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd. (312 ITR 254), cited in 968 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 43(1)

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

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.

Brooke Bond India Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 798 · 1997 · Supreme Court
228
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred for increasing a company's share capital or expanding its capital base, such as expenses related to the issue of shares, constitutes capital expenditure. Such expenses are not deductible as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even if they incidentally benefit the business.

Calcutta in CIT v. Vijay Shree Ltd.
43 Taxmann.com 396 · 2014 · High Court
214
citing judgments

Employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI, if paid by the assessee before the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1), is an allowable deduction under section 43B. No distinction is drawn between employer's and employee's contributions for the purpose of section 43B.

Judgments citing Section 43(1)

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 292/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

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

Edgeverve Systems Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

ITA 291/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

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

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 290/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

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

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6580/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transfer, amounting to Rs. 60,92,34,250/-, as the actual cost of such assets in the hands of the assessee under section 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land ... High Court and the consideration was fixed on the basis of enterprise valuation carried out by independent professionals. It was argued that under section 43(1) of the Act, the actual cost of assets in the hands of the assessee was the consideration actually paid, which had been apportioned among

Kovalam Resort Private Limtied, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 6579/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar1. Ita No. 6580/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) 2. Ita No. 6578/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. Ita No. 6579/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Kovalam Resort Private Dcit 2(1)(1), Limited 561, Aayakar The Leela, Sahar, Andheri Vs. Bhavan, M. K. East, Mumbai-400 059 Road, Mumbai- 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaeck4804H (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Dharan Gandi & Shri Ravi Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Ritesh Misra, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 30.01.2026

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transfer, amounting to Rs. 60,92,34,250/-, as the actual cost of such assets in the hands of the assessee under section 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land ... High Court and the consideration was fixed on the basis of enterprise valuation carried out by independent professionals. It was argued that under section 43(1) of the Act, the actual cost of assets in the hands of the assessee was the consideration actually paid, which had been apportioned among

Kovalam Resort Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6578/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

transfer, amounting to Rs. 60,92,34,250/-, as the actual cost of such assets in the hands of the assessee under section 43(1) of the Act. The balance amount of the slump sale consideration, amounting to Rs. 439,07,65,750/-, was treated as attributable to land ... High Court and the consideration was fixed on the basis of enterprise valuation carried out by independent professionals. It was argued that under section 43(1) of the Act, the actual cost of assets in the hands of the assessee was the consideration actually paid, which had been apportioned among

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Lighthouse Learning Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 5433/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 14ASection 250Section 32(1)Section 32(1)(ii)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

issue of valuation of goodwill and allowability of depreciation on goodwill in the light of Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and 6th proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act were never discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case? 3. Whether on the facts ... circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that in the light of the provisions of Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) and Explanation 2 to Section 43(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the actual cost of "Goodwill" arising out of amalgamation in the books

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 5143/MUM/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 254Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(6)

loan has nothing to do with the cost of asset acquired by the assessee for the purpose of his business.’’ Explanation 10 to section 43(1) will also not apply here as pleaded by the Ld. CIT D.R. before us, because it is applicable only where there is a subsidy ... grant of reimbursement which is not the case here. Even otherwise also section 43(1) is applicable only in the year of purchase of machinery and in the present case the purchase of capital asset was not in the assessment year2004-05. Thus, we hold that firstly, section 41(1

DCIT-5(2)(1), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan vs. Jsw Steel Coated Products Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the

ITA 5142/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 254Section 80Section 801ASection 80A(6)

loan has nothing to do with the cost of asset acquired by the assessee for the purpose of his business.'' Explanation 10 to section 43(1) will also not apply here as pleaded by the Ld. CIT D.R. before us, because it is applicable only where there is a subsidy ... grant of reimbursement which is not the case here. Even otherwise also section 43(1) is applicable only in the year of purchase of machinery and in the present case the purchase of capital asset was not in the assessment year2004-05. Thus, we hold that firstly, section 41(1

Incometax Officer, Chennai vs. Doosan Bobcat Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the CO of assessee is dismissed as not-pressed

ITA 2288/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 (Arising In Ita No.2288/Chny/2025) िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd., Htc Towers, 6Th Floor, Corporate Ward-2(1), Vs. Chennai. No.41, Gst Road, Guindy Industrial Estate S.O., Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. Pan: Aaccd 6529L

For Respondent: Mr. Praveen.S, JCIT
Section 250Section 32Section 32(1)(ii)

liability of Doosan International was transferred at their book value in the assessee's books and as per provisions of Explanation 7 to Section 43(1) of the Act, the assessee had claimed ITA No.2288/Chny/2025 & C.O No.76/Chny/2025 Doosan Bobcat Pvt. Ltd. :- 6 -: depreciation on the written down value as recorded

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1763/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

considered for the purpose of allowing the depreciation. vii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the provision of Explanation 7 to section 43(1) rightly brought out by the Assessing officer in the Assessment Order, as per which, since the Goodwill was never recorded in the books, the assessee

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Corporate Circle 1-1, Chennai vs. Fl Smidth Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1731/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short "Ld.Cit(A)") Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

considered for the purpose of allowing the depreciation. vii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the provision of Explanation 7 to section 43(1) rightly brought out by the Assessing officer in the Assessment Order, as per which, since the Goodwill was never recorded in the books, the assessee

Assisstant Commisioner of Income Tax Corporate Circle 1 1, Chennai vs. Fl Smith Private Limited, Kanchipuram

ITA 1682/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024 & Co No.71/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.: 1682/Chny/2024) निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent/ Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1731 & 1763/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Corporate Circle-1(1) Chennai. Flsmidth Private Limited, Vs. 34Th Egatoor, Flsmidth House, Rajiv Gandhi Salai, Kelambakkam, Kanchipuram – 603 103. [Pan: Aaacf-4997-N] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By Department By : Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate & Shri S.P.Chidambaram, Advocate : Shri. A R V Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O Rder : 15.12.2025 : 21.01.2026 Per Bench: These Appeals Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Out Of Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) Against Orders U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 92Ca(3) R.W.S 144C Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act') For The

For Respondent: Shri. P.M.Kathir, Advocate and
Section 143(3)Section 43(1)Section 43(6)

considered for the purpose of allowing the depreciation. vii. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the provision of Explanation 7 to section 43(1) rightly brought out by the Assessing officer in the Assessment Order, as per which, since the Goodwill was never recorded in the books, the assessee

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 7294/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

sale and not, amalgamation as stated by the Assessing Officer. 5.19 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on the Explanation 7 to section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 7393/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

sale and not, amalgamation as stated by the Assessing Officer. 5.19 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on the Explanation 7 to section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced

Thermo Fisher Scientific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 577/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 32(1)

sale and not, amalgamation as stated by the Assessing Officer. 5.19 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on the Explanation 7 to section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

sale and not, amalgamation as stated by the Assessing Officer. 5.19 The learned Assessing Officer has further relied on the Explanation 7 to section 43(1) of the Act, to hold that assessee is not entitled for depreciation on the Goodwill recognised. For ready reference, the relevant explanation is reproduced

Evry India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 837/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Nitin Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri N Balusamy, JCIT (DR)
Section 234CSection 37Section 43ASection 44A

they arise from reinstatement under AS-11. Therefore, the assessee has followed the correct and mandatory accounting method. 8.4 Furthermore, the provisions of section 43(1) of the Act, which defines actual cost, does not require adjustments for exchange . Page 5 of 11 differences relating to indigenous assets. There ... provision under section 43(1) of the Act that requires capitalisation of year-end exchange loss linked to indigenous assets. Therefore, even on this ground, the exchange loss cannot be added to the cost of assets. 8.5 The assessee claimed that the part of the ECB loan was also used

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I Noida, Noida vs. M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal taken by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 4119/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwaldy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Homes Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aafcr6959P (Appellant) (Respondent) Dy. Cit, M/S Rudra Buildwell Projects Central Circle-I, Private Limited, Noida-201301, Vs. D-53, Okhla, Phase-1, Uttar Pradesh. Delhi-110020. Pan-Aaecr9589E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

course of assessee's business with DRL, and that liability of assessee was a trading liability Assessing Officer, thus, held that provisions of section 43(1) were attracted in respect of amount of unsecured loan written off High Court by impugned order held that in view off act that

Prasam Rakesh Choudhary, Girnar Society, Bapurao Galli, Itwari, Nagpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central -1, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 529/IND/2025[2018 -2019]Status: HeardITAT Indore22 Dec 2025

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit Circle-1(1) M/S. Rashtriya Takniki Bhopal Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan बनाम/ Samiti, Vs. Bhopal (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aabar2266H Assessee By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Revenue By Shri Vinod Joshi, Ar Date Of Hearing 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22.12.2025

Section 10Section 271(1)(c)Section 43(1)

claiming of depreciation expense even on those assets whose capital cost has been reimbursed to the assessee in contravention of Explanation 10 to section 43(1), on the grounds that the assessee has accepted the disallowance towards captioned claim and disallowing expense would not alter the status of payment ... claiming of depreciation expense even on those assets whose capital cost has been reimbursed to the assessee in contravention of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) as also the CBDT Circular No. 715, dated 8-8-1995 and the judgement of the Supreme court in the case