Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.39, 41

Section 43(1) falls under section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 39 (Computation of actual cost) and section 41 (Written down value of depreciable asset) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 39 of the 2025 ActRead section 41 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 43(1) is CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. (306 ITR 392), cited in 577 of the 613 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 43(1)

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.

CIT v. P.J. Chemicals Ltd.
210 ITR 830 · 1994 · Supreme Court
158
citing judgments

This Supreme Court decision clarifies the conditions under which a capital subsidy received by an assessee should be reduced from the 'actual cost' of an asset for computing depreciation under Section 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, depending on whether the subsidy directly meets the cost of the asset.

CIT v. Nestle India Ltd.
14 Taxmann 99 · 1983 · High Court
125
citing judgments

Club entrance fees, if incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, are allowable as revenue expenditure under Section 37(1). Furthermore, an order holding a deductor liable for TDS defaults under Section 201 must be preceded by an inquiry into the deductee's actual tax payment.

CIT v. Chaphalkar Bro
88 Taxmann.com 178 · 2017 · Supreme Court
95
citing judgments

Subsidies granted under a Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment are capital in nature, determined by the 'purpose test', regardless of the timing, source, or form of the subsidy.

CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd.
66 ITR 710 · 1967 · Supreme Court
93
citing judgments

Income tax law intends to avoid double taxation, and where an item is brought to tax in one form, appropriate relief or adjustment should be provided to prevent its taxation again in another form. This principle is applicable when considering government grants or subsidies included in income and their impact on the actual cost of assets for depreciation.

CIT v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.
231 ITR 285 · 1998 · Supreme Court
81
citing judgments

The actual cost of an asset is distinct from the cost of borrowing money for its purchase. Foreign exchange fluctuations on loan repayment do not alter the asset's actual cost and are not covered by Section 43A.

Pr. CIT v. Welspun Steel Ltd.
264 Taxmann 252 · 2019 · High Court
64
citing judgments

Payments made to meet any portion of the actual cost, as contemplated under Explanation 10 to Section 43(1) of the Income Tax Act, are eligible for consideration.

Ashwin Vanaspati Industries v. CIT
255 ITR 26 · 2002 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on goodwill acquired through the slump sale of a business. When an assessee claims depreciation on the enhanced cost of an asset supported by a registered valuer's report, tax authorities must produce countervailing evidence, such as a departmental valuation report, to challenge it, rather than simply disregarding the expert opinion.

Judgments on Section 43(1)

Atharva Polymers Private Limited, Shirur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -1(1), Pune

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1912/PUN/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1912/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Atharva Polymers Private The Dy.Commissioner Of Limited, Vs. Income Tax, Cricle-1(1), Gat No.596, Dhoksanghvi, Pune. Ranjangaon Ganpati, Tal.Shirur, Pune – 412209. Pan: Aahca 1363 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit Tapadiya– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Punedated 25.07.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing Ex Party Order. 2. The Ld. Ao Erred & Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made Of Rs.1,93,452/- On Account Of Delayed Contribution Made To Pf Although The Same Was Paid Before The Due Date Of Furnishing Of Return U/S 139(1). 3. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Treatment Made W.R.T. Subsidy Received Of Rs.2,72,696/- Under Ip Scheme By Deducting The Receipt From Block Of Asset. 4. The Ld. Ao Erred & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Treating The Subsidy Received Under Ip Scheme As Capital Receipt.

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)

ACIT, Cen, Cir-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrosteel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2304/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, Central (Pan: Aaace4975B) Circle-4(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 In Ita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Electrosteel Casting Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- 4(4), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Department By - Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Assessee By - Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22 Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 46/Cit(A)-22/2014-15/17-18/Kol & 133/Cit(A)-22/2015-16/18-19/Kol Dated 31.07.2019 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Central Circle – 4(4), Kolkata, Dated 29.01.2018 & Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Dated 29.12.2018 Respectively. C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Ays 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Appeared For The Revenue & Sri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

ACIT, Cen.Cir.-4(4), Kolkata vs. M/S Electrsteel Castings Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, both, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2303/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Girish Agrawalita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner M/S. Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Vs. Of Income-Tax, Central (Pan: Aaace4975B) Circle-4(4), Kolkata. (Appellant) (Respondent) & C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 In Ita Nos.2303 & 2304/Kol/2019 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S. Electrosteel Casting Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ltd. Income-Tax, Central Circle- 4(4), Kolkata. (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Present For: Department By - Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Shri Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Assessee By - Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.05.2022 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: Both These Appeals By The Revenue & The Cross Objection By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-22 Kolkata Vide Appeal No. 46/Cit(A)-22/2014-15/17-18/Kol & 133/Cit(A)-22/2015-16/18-19/Kol Dated 31.07.2019 For A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Passed By Dcit, Central Circle – 4(4), Kolkata, Dated 29.01.2018 & Acit, Central Circle-4(4), Kolkata Dated 29.12.2018 Respectively. C.O. Nos. 24 & 25/Kol/2020 Electrosteel Casting Ltd. Ays 2014-15 & 2015-16 2. Shri Deba Kumar Sonowal & Tushar Dhawal Singh, Cit Appeared For The Revenue & Sri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For The Assessee.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)