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)

D.C.I.T Cir - 1, Kolkata vs. M/S Avery (India) Ltd, Kolkata

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

ITA 980/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.980/Kol/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-2007) Dcit, Circle-1, Kolkata, Vs. M/S Avery (India) Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, 7Th Floor, 28/2, Waterloo Street, P-7, Chowranghiee Square, Kolkata-700069 Kolkata-69 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacca 4694 B .. (अपीलाथ" /Assessee) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit Assessee By : Shri Manish Sheth, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/04/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xx, Kolkata, In Appeal No.85/Cit(A)-Xx/Circle-1/2011-12/Kol, Dated 16.01.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 29.12.2009. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income Disclosing Total Income Of Rs.3,88,68,115/-.The Return Of Income Was Processed U/S 143(1). Later On, The Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making Addition On Account Of Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.65,81,000/-. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee’S Claim In Respect Of Surrender Of Tenancy Rights Is Not Accepted Because As Per M/S Avery (India) Ltd. Section 43(6) Of The Act, Written Down Value Of A Particular Block Of Assets

For Appellant: Shri Manish Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT
Section 1Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 43Section 43(6)Section 50

Merck Specialities P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai

ITA 3943/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amarjit Singhिनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3943/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./3944/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Merck Specialities Private Limited The Acit, Circle-6(3), Aayakar Bhavan Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Rd. M.K. Road Vs. Worli,Mumbai-400 018. Mumbai-400020. Pan:Aaecm 2634 B (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Shri B.C.S Naik-Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Ms. Aarati Visanji सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/11/2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2017 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders Of The Cit(A)-12,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above-Mentioned Assessment Years(Ay.S).Assessee-Company, Is Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Trading & Marketing Of Fine Chemicals & Pharmaceutical Specialties. The Details Of The Dates Of Filing Of Returns,Returned Incomes,Assessed Incomes Etc.Can Be Summarised As Under: Ay. Roi Filed On Returned Income Asstt.Dt. Assessed Income Cit(A)Order 2007-08 29.10.2007 Rs.5.64,95,162/- 31.12.2010 Rs.22,79,96,485/- 28/03/2013 2008-09 30.09.2008 Rs.24,35,52,117/-/- 26.12.2011 Rs.37,61,06,040/- 18/03/2013

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala/Ms. Aarati VisanjiFor Respondent: Shri B.C.S Naik-CIT-DR
Section 254(1)Section 43(1)