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)

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC-1(1), Chennai

ITA 2698/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं/.Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

Adp India Private Limited, Chennai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre

ITA 2671/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपीलसं/Ita Nos.: 2670, 2671, 2672 & 2698/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21 Adp India Private Limited, Thamarai Tech Park, 6Th Floor, Sp Plot No. 16 To 20 & 20A, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate, Inner Ring Road, Guindy Industrial Estate So, Guindy, Chennai 600 032. [Pan: Aadcm-5547-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Shri Sandeep Bagmar, Advocate Shri V. Justin, Cit & Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit 08.05.2025 21.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per George George K: These Four Appeals Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Are Directed Against Four Separate Orders Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (All Dated 21.08.2024) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called 'The Act'). The Relevant Assessment Years Are 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2020-21. -2-

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 32Section 43(1)

Essel Mining & Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 5, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 786/KOL/2013[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.786/Kol/2013 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years :2008-2009) Essel Mining & Industries Vs Addl. Cit, Range-5, Kolkata Limited, 18Th Floor, 10, Camac Street,Kolkata-17 Pan No. :Aaace6607L (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. नििााररतीकीओरसे /Assessee By : Shri Akkaldudhwewala, Fca राजस्वकीओरसे /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Datta, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 24/04/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: This Is The Second Round Of Litigation Before The Tribunal After The Hon'Ble Calcutta High Court Vide Order Dated 17.11.2021 Passed In The Appeal Of The Assessee Filed U/S 260A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) Ia No. Ga/1/2017 (Old No. Ga/247/2017) In Ita 5/274/2017 Referred The Issue Back To The Tribunal For Fresh Consideration To Decide The Legal Issue In The Light Of Decision By Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. Saurashtra Cements Ltd. (2010) 325 Itr 422 (Sc) After Affording Both The Sides A Fair & Adequate Opportunity Of Hearing. The Hon'Ble High Court Directed The Tribunal To Decide Whether Compensation Received By The Assessee From Suzlon Energy Limited On Account Of Failure Of Performance Guarantee Parameters Of The Capital Assets Namely Wind Turbine Generators, Was On Revenue Account For Reducing Loss Incurred In The Course Of Business Or A Capital Receipt Outside The Purview Of Taxation.

For Appellant: Shri AkkalDudhwewala, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Datta, CIT-DR
Section 260ASection 43