CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.

236 ITR 518Supreme Court of India1999#449 most cited

What is CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. authority for?

For the purpose of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, a liability is considered to have ceased only when the creditor actively releases or writes off the amount, or when the liability ceases to exist in the assessee's books; mere expiry of the limitation period for recovery does not constitute cessation of liability.

203

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,368 Indian tax judgments — from 2002 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works · 236 ITR 518 · Supreme Court · Section 41(1) · cessation of liability · remission of liability · deemed income · limitation period · creditor write-off · liability ceased to exist in books

Also reported as

102 Taxmann 713

Sections most often in play

Section 41(1)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 1961Section 37(1)Section 69C
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundapproved gratuity fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)section 40a(9)section 211section 41(1)wholly and exclusively for businesssection 35dsection 41slump salesection 32(1)(ii)

Judgments citing CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.

Income Tax Officer, Dhar vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Jain Prop. M/S Sunil Traders, Kanwan, Badnagar

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 793/IND/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DRFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.793/Ind/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Income-tax Officer Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Jain Aayakar Bhawan, Dhar Prop. M/s. Sunil Traders, Kanwan, Tehsil-Badnawar, Distt. Dhar (M.P.) Survey No. 314/3, SDA Compound, Lasudiya Mori, Indore, Madhya Pradesh - 452001 PAN No. AFSPJ4881P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Shri Pankaj Shah, A.R. Respondent by : Date of Hearing 14.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 21 .11.2022 O R D E R…

Suresh Himmatlal Oza, Pune vs. Depuyy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -6, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 487/PUN/2020[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2022AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.487/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Suresh Himmatlal Oza, Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. 326, Rasta Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aafpo5026M Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri K. Srinivasan : Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 14.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is An Individual Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing & Sale Of Agarbattis & Other Type Of Incense Sticks. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Was Filed On 30.09.2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,43,38,340/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune (‘The Assessing Officer’) Vide Order Dated

For Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 41(1)

…r under consideration was discharged in the subsequent period. The genuineness of the expenditure was not doubted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd., 236 ITR 518 (SC) is squarely 3 applicable to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition of Rs.5,25,000/- towards incentive wages payable to labour u/s 41(1) of the Act. Thus, the ground of appeal no.1 filed by the assessee stands allowed. 6. Ground of appeal no.2 challenges the addition made on ad-hoc…

ACIT 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S Vindhya Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 281/IND/2018[14-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore18 Oct 2022

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy& Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: RespondentbyFor Respondent: Shri Sumit Nema, Sr
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)Section 68

…e under section 41(1) of the IT Act, without proving that liability ceased to exist and that too in the year under consideration. Reliance is placed on the following judgments that support the above proposition: • CIT v, Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd., [1999] 236 ITR 518 (SC)) • CIT v. SI Group India Ltd. ([2015] 379 ITR 326) • Chief CIT v. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. ([2002] 254 ITR 434 (SC)) • CIT v. Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. ([2013] 35 taxmann.com 540 (Delhi • PCIT v. Matruprasad C. Pandey ([2015] 377 ITR 363(Guj HC)) • ITO v. Bhavesh Prints (P.) Ltd. ([2011] 46 SOT 268 (Ahd. ITAT) • Nitin S. Garg v. Asstt. CIT([2010] 4…

Mangilal Lakahji Chowdhary, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 2791/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 2(47)Section 269USection 41(1)Section 53A

…-14 Mangilal L. Chowdhary The Revenue vehemently argued that the assessee had failed to prove the same in the relevant previous year by efflux of time. We find no merit in Revenue’s instant arguments in light of CIT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC) that it is the actual cessation than a deemed one which attracts section 41(1) of the Act. We therefore delete this former addition of Rs.1,65,000/- for the very precise reason. 3. Next comes rent disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- paid by the assessee to his wife which has been held as a colourable device to reduce taxable income on his behal…

Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Guwahati vs. Sinu Sonthalia, Guwahati

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

ITA 308/GTY/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Sept 2022AY 2015-16
Section 131Section 131(1)Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

…reditors had ceased to exist in the case of assessee. There is a cessation of liability in case of outstanding of above sundry creditors. The assessee has relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sugrauli Works (P) Ltd (1999) 236 ITR 518/152 CTR 46 (SC), The Hon’ble Court held: " 11. In our opinion, for considering the taxability of amount coming within the mischief of S. 41(1) of the Act, the system of accounting followed by the assessee is of no relevance or consequence. We have to go by the language used in s. 41(1) to find out whether or not the amount was obtained by the ass…

Peninsula Properties, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Central Circle–5(2) Peninsula Properties 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vakil Industrial Estate, Valbahat Nariman Point, Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Churchgate Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaifp 7134 L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Praveen Shekhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR
Section 143Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

…gh Court in the case of Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. (supra) has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay AIR 1958 SC 328 and CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1999] 102 Taxman 713/236 ITR 518. In Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court has referred to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kohinoor Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 578. The Delhi High Court, after following these decisions concluded that merely because the liability is barred by limitation, it does not cease to be a debt. Th…

High Range Foods Pvt Ltd, Ernakulam vs. The ACIT, Kochi

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

ITA 64/COCH/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Sri.V.M.Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt.J.M.Jammuna Devi, Sr.DR
Section 41(1)

…Services Ltd. – 307 ITR 202 (SC) in addition to the following cases – (a) Siddheswar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. CIT & Others – 270 ITR 1 (SC); (b) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT – 202 ITR 492 (Cal). (c) Sugauli Sugar Works (Impugned) Ltd. – 236 ITR 518 (SC); 5 I.T.A. Nos. 73-79/Coch/2014 (d) Star India P. Ltd. vs. Addl. CIT – 311 ITR (ST) 235 (Mumbai). (e) Govind Prasad Prabhu Nath – 171 ITR 417 (All.); (f) Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. – 161 ITR 524 (SC); (g) Ace Builders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 225 ITR 746 (SC); (h) Mantra Tanta Yantra Vigyan vs. CIT – 300 ITR 140 (Raj.); and…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat vs. M/S. J K Paper Limited, Surat

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6/SRT/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

….04.1997, if the assessee has written back the liability then it will amount to remission or cessation of liability for the purpose of invoking Section 41(1). As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works as reported in 236 ITR 518 (S.C.) and in the case of Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 434 (S.C.), even a unilateral entry passed by the assessee by writing back the liability will not amount to cessation of liability. However, after the amendment of Section 41(1) by way of insertion of Explanation to this extent, these two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court will not b…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J K Paper Ltd, Surat

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 157/SRT/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

….04.1997, if the assessee has written back the liability then it will amount to remission or cessation of liability for the purpose of invoking Section 41(1). As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works as reported in 236 ITR 518 (S.C.) and in the case of Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 434 (S.C.), even a unilateral entry passed by the assessee by writing back the liability will not amount to cessation of liability. However, after the amendment of Section 41(1) by way of insertion of Explanation to this extent, these two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court will not b…

DCIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Surat vs. J K Paper Ltd, Surat

In the result, all these three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 156/SRT/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

Section 10(1)Section 115JSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

….04.1997, if the assessee has written back the liability then it will amount to remission or cessation of liability for the purpose of invoking Section 41(1). As per the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sugauli Sugar Works as reported in 236 ITR 518 (S.C.) and in the case of Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. reported in 254 ITR 434 (S.C.), even a unilateral entry passed by the assessee by writing back the liability will not amount to cessation of liability. However, after the amendment of Section 41(1) by way of insertion of Explanation to this extent, these two judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court will not b…

Gopal Das Estates & Housing Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2576/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 23

…ppeals) it was submitted that act of the Assessing Officer is patently wrong for it was done half-heartedly and improperly without a specific confirmation of waiver by the creditor. The decisions of the Apex Court in ClT Vs. Sugauli Sugar Works P. Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC) and of the jurisdictional High Court in ClT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 were cited on this behalf. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) disagreeing with the view taken by the Assessing Officer in terms of the reasons as contained in para 18 of his order and by following the decisions of the Apex Court and the jurisdictional High Court…

The DCIT, Circle-4, Baroda vs. M/S. Yuvraj Industries Ltd., Baroda

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

ITA 2751/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Pradipkumar Kedia

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijaykumar Jaiswal, CIT-
Section 41Section 41(1)

…f the Act were not fulfilled. The authorities therefore, committed a serious error in adding the said sum to the income of the assessee. She further submitted that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P.) Ltd. [1999] 236 ITR 518/102 Taxman 713 would apply. She submitted that the facts in case of Sundaram Iyengar (supra) were different. Unlike in the said case, the assessee has not transferred the amount in its profit and loss accounts. Our attention was also drawn to two decisions this Court in case of CIT v. Bhogilal Ramjibhai Atara [2014] 43 taxmann.com 55/222 Taxman 3…

ITO 19(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Shri. Amit Virendra Patel, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2021AY 2015-16
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…40,90,969/-, the assessee had furnished the confirmation together with the ledger account of all the remaining creditors. The assessee also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works Pvt. Ltd, reported 236 ITR 518, CIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd., reported in 254 ITR 434, among other decisions. The ld. CIT(A) gave a categorical finding in his order stating that the assessee had not written back to income the sundry creditors payable in its books, hence, the liability payable to these sundry creditors had not ceased to exist. The ld. CIT(A) also observed that…

Shri K A Rame Gowda, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(3)(1) (Exemptions), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

ITA 456/BANG/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.V.Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni., JCIT-DR
Section 41(1)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “C”, BANGALORE Before Shri George George K, JM & Shri B.R.Baskaran, AM ITA No.456/Bang/2019 : Asst.Year 2012-2013 Shri K A Rame Gowda The Assistant Commissioner C/o.Vagus Super Speciality of Income-tax, Circle 2(3)(1) v. Hospitals, No.6, 7 and 8, 4th Main, (Exemption) 18th Cross, Malleshwaram Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 003. PAN : AFDPG7452A. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sri.V.Sridhar, CA Respondent by : Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni., JCIT-DR Date of Pronouncement :12.11.2021 Date of Hearing : 10.11.2021 O R D E R Per George George K, JM: This appea…

The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils Private Limited., Visakhapatnam

In the result appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 32/VIZ/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Sept 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.K.Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. M/S Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils Circle-3(1) Private Ltd., Visakhapatnam Sri Balaji Residency Sector-9, Mvp Colony Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aaccn1547J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Sonowal, CIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Section 68

…आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, धिशाखापटणम पीठ, धिशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (through web-based video conferencing platform) श्री एन के चौिरी,न्याधयक सदस्य एिं श्री धड.एस .सुन्दर धसंह, लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष BEFORE SHRI N.K.CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.32/Viz/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2013-14) Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M/s Naga Hanuman Solvent Oils Circle-3(1) Private Ltd., Visakhapatnam Sri Balaji Residency Sector-9, MVP Colony Visakhapatnam [PAN : AACCN1547J] (अपीलार्थी/ Appel…

ITO, War-4(1), Jaipur vs. Shri Amit Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 267/JPR/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Sept 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri G.M. Mehta (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (PCIT-DR) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@
Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

….2015 Yes 39 4. 31.03.2016 Yes 40 5. 31.03.2017 Yes 41 & 41A When it is so, no addition could be made by applying provisions of sec. 41(1) of IT Act. Reliance is placed on the judicial pronouncements: (1) CIT Vs. Sigauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC): Remission of liability-Condition precedent for application of sec. 41(1). Obtaining benefit of virtue of remission or cessation of liability. Mere unilateral transfer entry in accounts. No benefit obtained. Section 41(1) was not applicable. (P.B. 1 to 7 of II) (2) CIT Vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. (2012) 343 ITR 408 (Del): Remission or c…

M/S Abhyankar Brothers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6558/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 6558/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Abhyankar Brothers The Commissioner Of 216, Sant Tukaram Road, Carnac Income Tax, Circle-55 5Th Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Floor, Earnest House, फनाभ/ Ncpa Marg, Mumbai-400 Vs. 021 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaafa2467K अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Lodhe, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri. Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-55 Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-55/Acit-17(1)/It-431/17-18 Dated 28.08.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1), Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2013-14 Vide Order Dated 20.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of 2. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing Interest Under Section 37 Of The Act By Holding The Same Not For The Abhyankar Brothers; Ay 13-14 Purpose Of Business. For This, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Lodhe, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

…) of the Act. Here, the liability is very much outstanding hence, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act will not apply. We are taken help from the judicial pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC) and U.O.I. vs J.K. Synthetics Ltd. (199 ITR 14) (SC). We are of the view that once Abhyankar Brothers; AY 13-14 there is no write back of the liability payable to creditors and which is duly disclosed in the balance sheet as on 31.03.2013, the liability has not ceased to exists within the meaning of section 41(1) of the Act. Hence, the addit…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Ravi Goel, New Delhi

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

ITA 2895/DEL/2011[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Madhumita Royआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A. No.2895/Del/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year 1992-93 बनाम Acit Ravi Goel Circle 23(1), Room No. 190, Vs. Legal Heir Of C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Lt. Sh. S.P. Goel, New Delhi. S-347, Greater Kailash-Ii New Delhi. Pan No. Aagpg7134D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 132Section 144(1)

…I.T.A.No.2895/Del/2011/A.Y. 199-93 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A. No.2895/Del/2011 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year 1992-93 बनाम ACIT Ravi Goel Circle 23(1), Room No. 190, Vs. Legal Heir of C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, Lt. Sh. S.P. Goel, New Delhi. S-347, Greater Kailash-II New Delhi. PAN No. AAGPG7134D अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Smt. Sushma Singh, CIT DR राज"वक"ओरसे /Revenue by Sh. S.K. Chaturvedi, CA िनधा"रतीक"ओरसे /Assessee by सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date of…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2083/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…of the assessee’s case were not at par with T V Sundaram judgment and it was also explained that the subsequent judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. 5 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 Singauli Sugar Works (236 ITR 518) have explained the provisions of Section 41(1) and has clearly laid down the proposition that simply on expiry of the period of the limitation under the Limitation Act could not extinguish the debt and provisions of Section 41(1) are not attracted. (PB- 80-87). It was further explained that these clarifications by Hon’ble Supreme Court has subse…

Ajay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is dismissed and appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1704/DEL/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: S/Shri Pradeep Dinodia & R.KFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…of the assessee’s case were not at par with T V Sundaram judgment and it was also explained that the subsequent judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. 5 ITA. .899, 1348, 1349-D-2013, 5776-D-2014, 2083-D-2015, 1704-D-2015 Singauli Sugar Works (236 ITR 518) have explained the provisions of Section 41(1) and has clearly laid down the proposition that simply on expiry of the period of the limitation under the Limitation Act could not extinguish the debt and provisions of Section 41(1) are not attracted. (PB- 80-87). It was further explained that these clarifications by Hon’ble Supreme Court has subse…