What is Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Company Limited authority for?

For Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act to apply, the mere expiry of the limitation period does not constitute cessation of liability; there must be an explicit act by the creditor, such as a release or admission of write-off, confirming that the liability has ceased without the possibility of revival.

How many judgments cite Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Company Limited?

59 judgments on BharatTax cite Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Company Limited (254 ITR 434), spanning 2011 to 2025.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Company Limited come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 142(1), Section 41(1), Section 68, Section 69C, Section 133(6), Section 133A.

Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Company Limited (254 ITR 434)

Asst CIT 4(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Money Care Finance & Leasing P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 145/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year: 2008-09 Acit-4(3)(2), Money Care Finance & Room No.649, Leasing Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan 17, Gr. Floor, Sumernagar Vs. M.K. Road, Bldg. No.01, Near Kora Mumbai-400020 Kendra Flyover S.V. Road, Borivali West, Mumbai-400092 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No.Aaacm3714C

Section 41(1)

…income of the assessee and in case no deduction was claimed then provisions of section 41(1) would not apply. 7. Before us, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd.” 254 ITR 434 and further relying upon another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “CIT vs. Suguali Sugar Works (P) Ltd.” 236 ITR 518 has contended that mere unilateral transfer of entry in accounts would not enable the Department to apply section 41(1) of the I.T. Act. On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. has relied upon the findings of the Ld. CI…

M/S. Airline Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2477/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2476 & 2477/DEL/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2010-11 Airline Allied Services Ltd. v. DCIT Room No.205, 2nd Floor, G-5 Circle 1(1) Building New Delhi IGI Airport, Terminal 1 New Delhi TAN/PAN:AAACA1517B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.K. Sahu, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17 10 2017 Date of pronouncement: 10 11 2017 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee agai…

M/S. Airline Allied Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2476/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. K. Saini & Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Sahu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.2476 & 2477/DEL/2014 Assessment Year: 2008-09, 2010-11 Airline Allied Services Ltd. v. DCIT Room No.205, 2nd Floor, G-5 Circle 1(1) Building New Delhi IGI Airport, Terminal 1 New Delhi TAN/PAN:AAACA1517B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri P.K. Sahu, Advocate Respondent by: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT (DR) Date of hearing: 17 10 2017 Date of pronouncement: 10 11 2017 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M.: The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee agai…

S. Sampathraj, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2211/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Nov 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singh

For Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…f taxability under section 41(1) of the Act in a case where long outstanding sundry creditors were treated as taxable. The Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT(Chief) Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 434(SC) and CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd., (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC, has held that such amounts cannot be brought to tax under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. (supra) held that a unilateral action cannot bring about a cessation or remission of the liability because a remission…

ITO 12 12(1)4, Mumbai vs. Gautam K Nemani, Mumbai

Appeal of the AO stands partly allowed

ITA 2607/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./Ita/2607/Mum/2013,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Years: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer-17(1)(4) M/S. Rahul G. Nemani Room No.115, Aayakar Bhavan L/H. Shri Gautam K. Nemani, Vs. Rajabahadur Manison, 1St Floor, 32 M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 020. Apollo Street, Fort, Mumbai-400 023. Pan: Aaapn 3367 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri K.V. Vispute-Dr Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal-Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24.08.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 24.08.2016 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 लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 04/01/2013,Of The Cit(A)-21,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee, An Individual, Filed His Return Of Income On 31/10/2007, Declaring Income At Rs.(-)1.75 Lakhs.The Assessing Office(Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act,On 30/ 12/ 2009,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 2,51, 09, 397/-.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal-ARFor Respondent: Shri K.V. Vispute-DR

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

…ed during the assessment proceedings, that necessary details could not be gathered and produced before the AO. He filed an application before the FAA and requested her to admit the additional evidences. He relied upon the case of case of Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (254 ITR 434) and argued that even if certain parties were not traceable or such amounts were not outstanding in the books of the creditors it would not amount to remission of liabilities, that the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act stipulated that a benefit had to be obtained in the earlier years.The assessee also filed the balance sheets and profit and…

Madan Mohla, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5936/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Madan Mohla, Ito 11(1)(2) 301, Kings Apartments, Juhu Aayakar Bhavan, बनाम/ Tara Road, M.K. Rd. Vs. Mumbai-400049 Mumbai- (Assessee) (Revenue) P.A. No.Aaopm1470C "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee By Shri Sanjiv M. Shah (Ar) Shri Rajguru (Dr) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By 21/04/2016 सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2016 आदेश क" तार"ख /Date Of Order: आदेश / O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja (): This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai-3 {(In Short ‘Cit(A)’}, Dated 22.07.2011 Passed Against

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…proposition that no addition could have been made u/s 41(1), unless the liabilities actually ceased to exist and that too during the impugned year:- 1. CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd 236 ITR 518(SC) 2. CIT vs. SI Group 379 ITR 326(SC) 3. CCIT v. Kesaria 254 ITR 434 (SC) 4. CIT v. Jain 85 CCH 66 (DEL) 5. PCIT v. Matruprasad 377 ITR 363(Guj) 6. ITO v. Bhavesh 46 SOT 268(AHM) 7. Mitin v. ACIT 40 SOT 253 (AHM) 4 Madan Mohla 3.5. On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. 3.6. We have gone through the orders of the lower authorities and judgments relied upon before us. The admi…

ACIT Cir 25(3), Mumbai vs. Rukmini Iyer, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6242/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2015AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav & Shri Ashwani Tanejaassessment Year: 2009-10 Acit 25(3) Ms. Rukmini Iyer, R.No.308, C-11, 1002, Doll Apartment Bhatt बनाम/ Bandra Kurla Complex Lane, Vs. Bandra (E) Kandivali (W) Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400067 (Revenue) (Respondent) P.A. No.Aaapi7916F Revenue By Shri Chandra Vijay (Dr) Respondent By Shri Haresh P. Shah (Ar)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 4O

…med to be the profits or gains of the assessee's business which would otherwise not be the assessee's income. The assessment order, as such, is directly against the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 434." 4. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and going through the impugned order, we do not find any merit in the instant appeal. It is the conceded position that in the assessee's balance-sheet, the aforesaid liabilities have been shown, which are payable to the sundry creditors. Such liabilities, shown in the balance-sheet, indicate th…

Smt. Madhu Bhatnagar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5218/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Oct 2015AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Sh. S.M. Mathur, CAFor Respondent: Sh. P.D. Kanunjna, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

…f taxability under section 41(1) of the Act in a case where long outstanding sundry creditors were treated as taxable. The Hon’ble High Court after referring to the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of CIT(Chief) Vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd., (2002) 254 ITR 434(SC) and CIT Vs. 5 Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd., (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC), has held that such amounts cannot be brought to tax under Section 41(1) of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. (supra) held that a unilateral action cannot bring about a cessation or remission of the liability because a remis…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA/774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.V.EASWAR

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…he debt was barred by limitation and had become unenforceable. It was further pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the aforesaid view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 434. It was pointed out that in this judgment the Supreme Court had considered its earlier decision in CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 and distinguished the same on the ground that the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different. A few other authorities were also cited before th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA-774/2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…he debt was barred by limitation and had become unenforceable. It was further pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the aforesaid view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 434. It was pointed out that in this judgment the Supreme Court had considered its earlier decision in CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 and distinguished the same on the ground that the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different. A few other authorities were also cited before th…

The Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd

ITA - 774 / 2009HC Delhi23 Dec 2011

Section 260ASection 41(1)Section 68

…he debt was barred by limitation and had become unenforceable. It was further pointed out on behalf of the assessee that the aforesaid view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 254 ITR 434. It was pointed out that in this judgment the Supreme Court had considered its earlier decision in CIT v. T.V.Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. (1996) 222 ITR 344 and distinguished the same on the ground that the factual matrix and the provision of law considered therein were entirely different. A few other authorities were also cited before th…

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Agriculturel Market Committee

ITTA/219/2011HC Telangana27 Jun 2011

Bench: V.V.S.RAO,RAMESH RANGANATHAN