← 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)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Bhopoal, Bhopal vs. M/S Rashtriya Takniki Shikshak Prashikshan Evam Anunsandhan Sansthan, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 509/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

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

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward6(1), Pune

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the

ITA 157/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Pune

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

ITA 156/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 6(1), Pune

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the

ITA 155/PUN/2025[2017-198]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2017-198

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025

Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Pune

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

ITA 154/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-5, Pune

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

ITA 1423/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-5, Pune vs. Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd., Pune

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

ITA 114/PUN/2025[2020]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

ACIT, Circle-5, Pune vs. Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Private Limited, Pune

In the result, ITA Nos. 154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes, ITA

ITA 1844/PUN/2024[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2016-17 To 2018-19

For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

ACIT, Pune vs. Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Private Limited, Pune

In the result, ITA Nos.154 to 156/PUN/2025 filed by the

ITA 1843/PUN/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2025

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.154 To 156/Pun/2025

Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

fixed assets therefore such subsidy cannot be reduced from the actual cost of the assets provided in Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and therefore taxable in the hands of assessee u/s.2(24)(xviii). 6. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal ... that before introducing the said clause (XVIII) to Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act, the existing provisions of explanation (10) to section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act contained the guidance for treatment of the Government Grants/Subsidy relating to depreciation assets. Section 43(1) defines "actual cost

Puri Oil Mills Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1681/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 44Section 44ASection 5

wherein such capital subsidies were held not deductible from the cost of fixed assets not withstanding the explanation 10 of section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act? 2. That the Ld. Assessing Officer while disallowing and worthy CIT(Appeals) while upholding the said disallowance of depreciation by adjusting ... held in similar situation that such capital subsidies were held not deductible from the cost of fixed assets notwithstanding the explanation 10 of section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act as the scheme under which the assessee had received subsidy was meant for the purpose of encouraging the entrepreneurs

Income Tax Officer 23(2)(1), Mumbai, Lalbaug, Piramal Chambers Mumbai vs. Nine Dimensions Housing LLP, Bandra East, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue-Department stands dismissed

ITA 3686/MUM/2023[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Prabhash Shankar (Am) Ito 23(2)(1) Nine Dimensions Housing Llp Room No. 512 103/1St Floor, Renuka Chsl Piramal Chambers Vs. Kalanagar, Near Gurunanak Ss Rao Road, Lalbaug Hospital, Bandra East Mumbai-400 012. Mumbai-400 051. Pan : Aamfn1691A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. Ca Revenue By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui , Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 Date Of : 16/12/2025 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) :-

For Appellant: Shri Satyaprakash Singh, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui , Ld. SR. DR
Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43(1)Section 68

PCIT’), who vide order dated 23.3.2022 under section 263 of the Act, exercised its jurisdiction for the limited purpose of rectifying provisions of section 43(1) of the Act qua making the addition of Rs. Rs.1,02,82,440/- on account of interest paid to the creditors, as applied

Vodafone West Limited, (Formerly Known As Vodafone Essar Gujarat Limited), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 671/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

The Dy CIT, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad vs. Vodafone West Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 1634/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri K.K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 45Section 47Section 48Section 50D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Shriniwas Engineering Auto Components Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 6, Pune

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

ITA 201/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.201/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 43

ground that since there is direct link to the investment in Fixed Asset by the eligible unit therefore as per Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act since the cost of asset has been met directly or indirectly by the Central Govt, State Govt. or any authority then ... Assessing Officer that the subsidy is revenue in nature, as the Assessing Officer himself had invoked the provisions of Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act. Therefore, the issue that arises for our consideration in the present appeal is whether the amount of subsidy received from the Government

M/S Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

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

ITA 1053/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263

Court in the case of CIT Vs. Smifs Securities Ltd. (2012) 348 ITR 0302. 6. Ld. PCIT referring to the explanation 3 to section 43(1) of the Act has observed that only the actual cost of the transferred capital asset from the amalgamating company to the amalgamated company should ... shall 7 M/s Gera Developments Pvt. Ltd. be apportioned between the amalgamating company and the amalgamated company. (iv) As per explanation 3 of section 43(1) of Income-tax Act, the cost of acquisition of the goodwill acquired as a result of amalgamation in the hands of amalgamated company shall

Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission, Lucknow vs. ACIT(Exemption) Circle, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 360/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 124(3)Section 143Section 143(2)

grant or reimbursement is considered for determination of the actual cost of the asset, in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. As per Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act, in case if any subsidy is received towards acquisition

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions) Lucknow, Lucknow vs. Uttar Pradesh Water Supply and Sanitation Mission, Lucknow

In the result, both appeals are partly allowed

ITA 288/LKW/2024[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow28 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 11(1)(a)Section 124(3)Section 143Section 143(2)

grant or reimbursement is considered for determination of the actual cost of the asset, in accordance with the provisions of Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act. As per Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Act, in case if any subsidy is received towards acquisition

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

value of the business was determined in negative. 42. The Ld. CIT-DR, drawing our attention to the Explanation 7 and 7A to section 43(1) of the Act, Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act and sixth proviso to section 32(1)(ii) of the Act, submitted ... Counsel further submitted that there was no restriction on claim of depreciation in case of slump sale as Explanation 7 and 7A to section 43(1) of the Act, Explanation 2 to section 43(6) of the Act and sixth proviso to section 32(1

Sahyadri Farmers Producer Company Limited, Nashik vs. PCIT, -1, Nashik

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

ITA 1378/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sahyadri Farmers Producer Vs. Pcit-1, Nashik. Company Limited, Survey No.1102/8, Behind Police Head Quarter, Adgaon, Nashik- 422003. Pan : Aapcs1516D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B. Phadke Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.03.2025 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By Ld. Pcit, Nashik-1 [‘Ld. Pcit’] For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Pcit-1, Nashik Erred In Law & On Facts In Assuming Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The Ita, 1961 On The Analogy That The Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Ita, 1961 Dated 19/09/2022 Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue. Grounds Relating To Government Grants:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 263Section 43(1)

without appreciating that, said grants are reduced from cost of respective assets (for which grants are received) as per explanation 10 to section 43(1). As such, the such grants are excluded from purview of section 2(24)(xviii). 4. Learned PCIT erred in law and on facts

Signode India Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad

ITA 240/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: Shri H. SrinivasuluFor Respondent: Dr. Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 32

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “B” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA