← 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)

Grasim Industries Ltd ( Corporate Finance Division), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3762/MUM/2009[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Feb 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Assessee vide order, dated 18/05/2009. 4. Not being satisfied with the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A), the Assessee has preferred appeal before this Tribunal. The Revenue has also filed cross-appeal challenging the relief granted by the Id. CIT(A).

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kishor Dhule
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 24Section 43B

chargeable to tax. Further the argument of the learned departmental representative has also been negated about the applicability of explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the act by the decision of the Assessment Years: 2006-2007 coordinate bench in case of orbit exports (supra). In view of this both

Agrawal Distilleries Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/MUM/2024[2014-2015 (Q3)]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha(PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

learned AO/DRP. has erred in not including the amount of ARC as a part of the cost of the telecom towers under section 43(1) of the Act. 2.3. In the alternative to ground 2.1 and 2.2 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case

Vodafone Digilink Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee Ground Nos 9 & 10 is allowed

ITA 1169/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Feb 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla/wShriFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsala Jha (PCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 35ASection 36(1)(m)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 43(1)

learned AO/DRP has erred in not including the amount of ARC as a part of the cost of the telecom towers under section 43(1) of the Act. 2. 3. In the alternative to ground 2.1 and 2.2 above, on the facts and circumstances of the case

L & T Technologies Services Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the additional grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4255/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeel&T Technologies Services Ltd Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income L&T House, N.M. Marg, Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai Room No.545, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Mumbai Pan: Aaccl4310P Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash (CIT- DR)
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 170Section 2Section 250Section 37Section 90

nature of demerger nor have the parties treated it to be so. 14.2. We note that the Ld. AO referred to Explanation 3 section 43(1) of the Act, alleging the main purpose of transfer as the reduction of liability to income tax by claiming depreciation on the enhanced cost

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Pune

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 326/IND/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

ITAT has upheld that the subsidy received by the Appellant under PSI is a capital receipt covered under Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and is not taxable as revenue receipt. It is trite law that the Assessing Officer has a legal obligation to implement the order

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Bridgestone India Private Limited, Pune

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 325/IND/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 43(1)

ITAT has upheld that the subsidy received by the Appellant under PSI is a capital receipt covered under Explanation 10 to section 43(1) of the Act and is not taxable as revenue receipt. It is trite law that the Assessing Officer has a legal obligation to implement the order

T vs. Motor Company Ltd., Chennaivs.ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 672/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.672/Chny/2017 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Tvs Motor Co. Ltd., V. The Acit, No.29, Haddows Road, Corporate Circle – 3(1), Chennai-600 006. Chennai. [Pan: Aaacs 7032 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT
Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’डी’ "यायपीठ, चे"ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ीएबीटी. वक", "ाियकसद" एवं

Kyocera Document Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for AY 2012-13 is allowed

ITA 7104/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 40A(7)Section 43Section 92C

ruling. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court ruling in favor of the assessee held that, in view of introduction of Explanation 8 to section 43(1)), interest which was paid after slum sale was effected and once factory assets were operational could not be capitalized and therefore, such interest expenses ... account of interest expenditure on unpaid purchase consideration?" Judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court Explanation 8 to Section 43 (1) of the Act requires reproduction at this stage — "Explanation 8 - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where any amount is paid or is payable

Jt.Commissioner of Income-Tax(OSD), Satara vs. Kute Sons Dairys Limited, Satara

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 226/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R. Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 43(1)

developing integrated cold chain facility for dairy units and it is a capital subsidy. Assessee further states that provisions of explanation 10 to section 43(1) are not applicable. Assessee states that it is not a revenue subsidy but a capital subsidy wherein the provisions of explanation 10 to section

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2767/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora and Nikhil Tiwari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(3)Section 153Section 32Section 43(1)

Novateur Electrical and Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd., AY 2011-12 10. in invoking the 6" proviso to section 32 and explanation 7 to section 43(1) which are applicable to a scheme of amalgamation and in not appreciating that the assets were acquired through a slump sale and not under

The DCIT, Circle-1(1), Now Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda vs. Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3164/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

without reducing the amount already taxed as income in earlier year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not considered the provisions of section 43(1) of the IT Act and has wrongly considered the grant as being received for meeting the cost of Fixed Assets. 3.0 The learned Commissioner

Gujarat State Electricity Corporation Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 3124/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 28Section 37Section 43(1)

without reducing the amount already taxed as income in earlier year. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not considered the provisions of section 43(1) of the IT Act and has wrongly considered the grant as being received for meeting the cost of Fixed Assets. 3.0 The learned Commissioner

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7445/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

exemption of registration charges and stamp duty as mentioned in A' above ought not to be reduced from the cost of assets under section 43(1) of the Act. 2. The following notional amount of incentives referred in 'B' above are in the nature of capital receipts and ought

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 735/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

exemption of registration charges and stamp duty as mentioned in A' above ought not to be reduced from the cost of assets under section 43(1) of the Act. 2. The following notional amount of incentives referred in 'B' above are in the nature of capital receipts and ought

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7251/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

exemption of registration charges and stamp duty as mentioned in A' above ought not to be reduced from the cost of assets under section 43(1) of the Act. 2. The following notional amount of incentives referred in 'B' above are in the nature of capital receipts and ought

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 788/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

exemption of registration charges and stamp duty as mentioned in A' above ought not to be reduced from the cost of assets under section 43(1) of the Act. 2. The following notional amount of incentives referred in 'B' above are in the nature of capital receipts and ought

ACIT 3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 764/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

exemption of registration charges and stamp duty as mentioned in A' above ought not to be reduced from the cost of assets under section 43(1) of the Act. 2. The following notional amount of incentives referred in 'B' above are in the nature of capital receipts and ought

Bajaj Hindustan Sugar & Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 5806/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vp & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C. Kanojiya &

exemption of registration charges and stamp duty as mentioned in A' above ought not to be reduced from the cost of assets under section 43(1) of the Act. 2. The following notional amount of incentives referred in 'B' above are in the nature of capital receipts and ought

Indus Towers Limited (Formerly Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd and As Successor in Interest of Erstwhile Indus Tower Ltd), Gurugram, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2762/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Group. 3.9 Since the PIAs were acquired by the TowerCos without any consideration, transfer of the PIAs 'gift' As per Explanation 2 to section 43(1) of the Act, where an asset is acquired by the assessee by way of 'gift' or 'inheritance', the actual cost of the asset ... TowerCos was not in the nature of 'gift' and therefore, held that the benefit under section 47(iii) or Explanation 2 of section 43(1) of the Act cannot be taken to determine the actual cost/ tax WDV in the hands of the TowerCos and thus

ACIT, Circle 10, New Delhi vs. Indus Tower Limited, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2212/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Dec 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarindus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Acit, Vs. Indus Towers Ltd, 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, Central Circle-10, New Delhi Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Indus Towers Ltd (Formerly Vs. Dcit, Known As Bharti Infratel Ltd), Circle-12(1), 4Th Floor, Dlf Cybercity, New Delhi Building No. 10, Tower A, Dlf Qe, So Gurgaon, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aadcv0274F Assessee By : Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv Shri Rohit Jain, Adv Shri Deepesh Jain, Adv Ms. Shaurya Jain, Ca Revenue By: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12/09/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2024

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 139(5)Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148

Group. 3.9 Since the PIAs were acquired by the TowerCos without any consideration, transfer of the PIAs 'gift' As per Explanation 2 to section 43(1) of the Act, where an asset is acquired by the assessee by way of 'gift' or 'inheritance', the actual cost of the asset ... TowerCos was not in the nature of 'gift' and therefore, held that the benefit under section 47(iii) or Explanation 2 of section 43(1) of the Act cannot be taken to determine the actual cost/ tax WDV in the hands of the TowerCos and thus