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

DCIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Ecci Info Park Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1369/CHNY/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1369/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-07 & C.O. No.127/Chny/2018 [In I.T.A. No.1369/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Ecci Info Park Limited, Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Vs. Old No. 4, New No. 3, Velayutham Chennai 600 034. Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. [Pan: Aabce4585G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Sriniranjani, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.03.2020 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2020 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvurul Rl Reddy: The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 13, Chennai Dated 01.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Delayed By 4 Days, For Which, The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay, To Which; The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Revenue Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The Delay Of 4 Days In 2

For Appellant: Shri A. Sundararajan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Ms. Sriniranjani, Advocate
Section 28