Section 43 of the Income Tax Act

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

Section 43 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. (227 ITR 260), cited in 36 of the 78 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 43

CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co.
227 ITR 260 · 1997 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

In a slump sale, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned among individual assets for claiming depreciation, as there is no indication of the price attributable to specific assets out of the total sale consideration.

CIT v. Mugneeram Bangur & Corn. (Land Department)
57 ITR 299 · 1965 · Supreme Court
21
citing judgments

In a slump sale of a business undertaking, the slump purchase price cannot be apportioned amongst individual assets for the purpose of claiming depreciation if no item-wise value was assigned in the purchase agreement.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Rassi Cements Ltd.
351 ITR 169 · 2013 · High Court
14
citing judgments

Subsidies received after commencement of production are of a revenue character and are taxable accordingly, particularly when the purpose of the subsidy is to assist in carrying out business operations rather than setting up the business.

ACIT v. Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.
61 Taxmann.com 330 · 2015 · Reported
14
citing judgments

Periodic maintenance expenses incurred on a road constructed under a concessionaire agreement are allowable as a deduction under Section 37, even if such repair work is carried out only in the 5th year.

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Godavari Plywoods
168 ITR 632 · 1987 · High Court
13
citing judgments

When an assessee receives a subsidy towards the cost of capital assets, that subsidy must be reduced from the cost of the fixed assets for the purpose of calculating depreciation. This reduction affects the Written Down Value (WDV) of the asset.

Trib.) 12. Hindustan Industrial Resources Ltd. v. ACIT
335 ITR 77 · 2011 · High Court
12
citing judgments

Land classified as agricultural by the District Collector is considered agricultural land for tax purposes, regardless of the owner's intention to use it for industrial purposes or the absence of agricultural operations.

DCIT v. Credtalpha Alternative Advisors P. Ltd.
134 Taxmann.com 223 · 2022 · ITAT
9
citing judgments
CIT v. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation
45 DTR 117 · 2010 · High Court
8
citing judgments
Agro Portfolio Private Limited v. PCIT
161 Taxmann.com 303 · 2024 · High Court
7
citing judgments
M/s. Brakes India Ltd. v. JCIT
363 ITR 13 · High Court
7
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 43

Pooja Metal Processors Private Limited, Faridabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1301/DEL/2021[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 May 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Pooja Metal Processors Pvt Ltd., Vs Dcit, Plot No.89, Cpc, Dlf Industrial Estate Phase I, Bangalore. Anangpur, Faridabad – 121 003. Pan: Aaacp9084G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.K. Mishra, Ca Revenue By : Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.05.2023 Order Per M. Balaganesh, Am: This Appeal In Ita No.1301/Del/2021 For Ay 2018-19 Arises Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Cit(A)’, In Short] In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1034567083(1) Dated 02.08.2021 Against The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 17.05.2019 By The Ld. Assessing Officer, Cpc (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Ld. Ao’). 2. The First Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Confirming The Disallowance Made On Account Of Employee’S Contribution To Provident Fund/Employees’ State Insurance Scheme (Pf/Esi) Which Was Not Deposited Till The Due Date Prescribed Under The Respective Acts, But, Were Duly Remitted To The Account Of The Government On Or Before The Due Date Of Filing The Return Of Income U/S 139 (1) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Mishra, CAFor Respondent: Ms Princy Singhla, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 32Section 43