← 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)

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)

erred in 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 ... Supreme Court in the 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

Elim Resort Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 3(2)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 238/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevanassessment Year :2016-17 M/S. Elim Resorts Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, No.175, Nettigere Village, Ward – 3(2)(2), Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Aadce 0682 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. B. S. Balachandra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.02.2020 Of Cit(A)-2, Bengaluru, Relating To Ay 2016-17. 2. The First Issue Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To Disallowance Of Depreciation On Buildings Of Rs.3,19,208/-. The Opening Wdv As On 01.04.2014 & As On 01.04.2015 As Per The Books Of Accounts Of The Assessee Was As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department
Section 32Section 43(1)

working out the share premium in allowing the depreciation. It was submitted that this is not in accordance with the provisions section 43(1)(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) according to which the actual cost of asset as adjusted for interest payments and forex variations ... after providing for depreciation. Sec.32 of the Act mandates depreciation to be allowed as deduction on the W DV as understood under section 43(1)(6) of the Act. The AO therefore could not have tampered with the WDV of the Building Block of Assets based on a valuation report

M/S Subex Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-6(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 107/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahuit(Tp)A No. 107/Bang/2019 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Subex Ltd., Rmz Ecoworld, The Income Tax Outer Ring Road, Officer, Devarabisanahalli, Ward – 6 (1)(4), Bangalore – 560 103. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aabcs9255R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rotti, Ca : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Cit- Revenue By Dr Date Of Hearing : 07-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 14-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against Order Dated 26/10/2018 Passed By Ld.Ito, Ward – 6(1)(4), Bangalore For A.Y. 2014-15 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Grounds Stated Hereunder Are Independent Of & Without Prejudice To One Another. The Appellant Submits As Under: 1. Assessment & Reference To Learned Transfer Pricing Officer Are Bad In Law 1.1. The Income Tax Officer. Ward — 6(1)(4), Bangalore (Learned Assessing Officer Or 'Ld. Ao') Erred In Making A Reference To The Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Transfer Pricing —Range 2(2)(1) (Learned Transfer Pricing Officer' Or 'Ld. Tpo'), Inter Alia, Since He Has Not Recorded

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Rotti, CA
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU

M/S I & B Seeds Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 3415/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Nitish Ranjan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sankar Ganesh K, D.R
Section 43(1)

higher than what the Appellant took over the said businesses. 3) The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in invoking explanation 3 to section 43(1), thereby treating the transaction relating to goodwill as sham and colorable in the absence of a valuation report is untenable and unwarranted inasmuch ... goodwill as sham and colorable device to claim higher depreciation by the assessee company. The AO invoked the provisions of Explanation 3 to Section 43(1) of the Act and restricted the value of intangible at Rs.19,60,780/-, as already recorded in the books of Indus Seeds

M/S. Te Connectivity Services India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 300/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No.300/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Sheshadri & Ms. Amulya K., CAsFor Respondent: Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

Appellant pursuant to the acquisition under a slump sale model. 64. However, the AO did not invoke the provisions of Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act, which empower the AO to determine the actual cost of an asset that was previously used by any other person prior ... above mentioned provision, the AO is not empowered under the Act, to determine the 'actual cost' of an asset, which is defined under section 43(1) of the Act to mean the actual cost of the assets to the Assessee, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof

Dusters Total Solutions Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)1, Bangalore

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

ITA 165/BANG/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Dusters Total Solutions Dcit, Vs. Services Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), 4Th Floor, No.50, Zatakia Centre, Bengaluru. 100 Ft. Road, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 038. Pan : Aaccd 5989 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Roumuan Paite, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2022 O R D E R Per B. R. Baskaran:

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32(1)Section 43(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 407/BANG/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

which otherwise find place in sections 32 and 32A, etc., of the 1961 Act. The expression "actual cost" is defined in section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which is essentially a definition section which is subject to the context to the contrary.” 81. In assessee’s case, the core

M/S. Indianoil Skytaking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 299/BANG/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2022AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

which otherwise find place in sections 32 and 32A, etc., of the 1961 Act. The expression "actual cost" is defined in section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which is essentially a definition section which is subject to the context to the contrary.” 81. In assessee’s case, the core

M/S Indianoil Skytanking Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 583/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 May 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Padamchand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)Section 80Section 80I

which otherwise find place in sections 32 and 32A, etc., of the 1961 Act. The expression "actual cost" is defined in section 43(1) of the 1961 Act which is essentially a definition section which is subject to the context to the contrary.” 81. In assessee’s case, the core

Joint CIT (OSD) Cent Cir. 1(4), Mumbai vs. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2155/MUM/2016[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 1996-97
Section 143(3)

commencement of business. c) Alternatively, the incentives/ subsidies are to be reduced from the cost of assets as per Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. d) Claim of exemption from tax was not made in the return of income and cannot be allowed following the decision ... treated as capital receipt, then the same should be reduced from the cost of the asset in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43 (1) of the Act for A.Yrs. 1999-2000 and 2000- 2001 as the said amendment was applicable only from Asst Year 1999-2000 and onwards

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Lld, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bangaluru

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

ITA 2076/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

authority as well as by the Tribunal. On further appeal by the Assessee, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that as per section 43(1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the taxpayer, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof ... been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act provides that where, before the date of acquisition by the Assessee, the assets were at any time used by any other person for the purposes of his business or profession

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2075/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

authority as well as by the Tribunal. On further appeal by the Assessee, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that as per section 43(1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the taxpayer, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof ... been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act provides that where, before the date of acquisition by the Assessee, the assets were at any time used by any other person for the purposes of his business or profession

M/S. Sogefi Mnr Filtration India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(2), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2074/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)

authority as well as by the Tribunal. On further appeal by the Assessee, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that as per section 43(1) "actual cost" means the actual cost of the assets to the taxpayer, reduced by that portion of the cost thereof ... been met directly or indirectly by any other person or authority Explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act provides that where, before the date of acquisition by the Assessee, the assets were at any time used by any other person for the purposes of his business or profession

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 794/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2015-16
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

ITA Nos. 792, 793 and 794/Mum/ 2019 Assessment years: 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Page 1 of 11

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 793/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2014-15
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

ITA Nos. 792, 793 and 794/Mum/ 2019 Assessment years: 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Page 1 of 11

DCIT Cen Cir 7(3), Mumbai vs. Sanathanagar Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result and subject to the above observation, all the three appeals are dismissed

ITA 792/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2022AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(iii)

ITA Nos. 792, 793 and 794/Mum/ 2019 Assessment years: 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 Page 1 of 11

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)

depreciation claim should be on the net value/cost of the asset after reducing the amount of incentives in terms of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act?” 25.1 The Hon’ble High Court decided the question as under: 9. The second question raised by the Revenue is consequent ... financial aid, is not a payment, directly or indirectly, to meet any portion of the 'actual cost'. The expression 'actual cost' in section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961, needs to be interpreted liberally. Such a subsidy does not partake of the incidents which attract the conditions

M/S Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2 Ltpu, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is treated as partly allowed for 37

ITA 3373/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranit(Tp)A No.3373/Bang/2018 Assessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Vs. Acit, Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, 2Nd Circle - 2, Large Taxpayer Unit, Phase, Industrial Area, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aabct 7374 C Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.02.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.02.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R

Suprerior Financial Consultancy Services P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7501/MUM/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Feb 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble&

For Appellant: Shri V.G. Ginde &For Respondent: Shri Hoshang Boman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 148Section 43(1)(ii)

sale of shares (including those converted from stock-in-trade), our company claimed deduction for the “cost of acquisition” as provided in section 43(1)(ii) of the Act. This treatment is in accordance with the Hon’ble Bombay High Court’s judgment in CT vs. Jaanhavi Investments

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)

holding that the Appellant's claim of 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 ... Resolution Panel. 4. The DRP held that the 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