“Section 41(1)”

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Act without appreciating that the liabilities were time-barred, unconfirmed, and without any evidence of enforceability or Continued existence 4. "Whether ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Act without appreciating that the liabilities were time-barred, unconfirmed, and without any evidence of enforceability or continued existence? Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

DCIT, CIRCLE-3(4), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GLENMARK PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for Assessment Year 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Act without appreciating that the liabilities were time-barred, unconfirmed, and without any evidence of enforceability or Continued existence 4. "Whether ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made under Section 41(1) of the Act without appreciating that the liabilities were time-barred, unconfirmed, and without any evidence of enforceability or continued existence? Glenmark Pharmaceuticals

KABEL METAL POWER CABLES LTD,THANE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

account. The learned DR further submitted that the Form 3CD filed by the assessee did not disclose any amount chargeable to tax under section 41(1), which clearly indicated that the income arising on account of write-back of creditors was not offered to tax. It was also contended that ... Form 3CD that no additional income on account of write-back of creditors was required to be offered to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. It was submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 02.09.2022 furnished details of creditors written back along

RELIANCE RETAIL LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 8(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed,\nwhereas the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

account. The learned DR further submitted that the\nForm 3CD filed by the assessee did not disclose any amount\nchargeable to tax under section 41(1), which clearly indicated\nthat the income arising on account of write-back of creditors was\nnot offered to tax. It was also contended that ... Form 3CD that no additional income\non account of write-back of creditors was required to be offered to\ntax under section 41(1) of the Act. It was submitted that during\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter\ndated 02.09.2022 furnished details of creditors written back\nalong

PRO FIN CAPITAL SERVICES LTD,MUMBAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL BUILDING MUMBAI

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

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Jagadishassessment Year: 2017-18 Pro Fin Capital Services Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Private Limited Of Income Tax Central Circle 13(1)(2), Central 1. Pro Fin Capital Services Building, New Marine Lines, Private Limited Churchgate, Mumbai-400020 503, Western Edge 11, Western Express High Way, Mumbai- 400066 2.Pgt & Associates Chartered Accountants, 308-3098, Sahajanand Palace, Opp. Rahul Tower, Anandnagar Crossroad, Prahaladnagar, Ahmedabad-380015 Pan: Aaacp0251F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Shri Virabhadra Mahajan , (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 04.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 06.03.2026

material available on record. 4. The assessee has challenged the addition of Rs.1,29,48,750/- made by the Assessing Officer under section 41(1) of the Act contending that the said amount was shown as liability in the balance sheet and the liability had not ceased to exist ... therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer treating the same as deemed income under section 41(1) of the Act is bad in law. The assessee has further contended that the unsecured loans remained outstanding for more than three years but the creditors had confirmed the balances and therefore

GIRISH RAGHAVAN,MUMBAI vs. ASSTT. CIT-26(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon’Blegirish Raghavan, Acit 26(1), 201-B Eternia, 1, Mumbai Vs. Hiranandani Gardens Mumbai 400 076. Pan : Ahcpr2792R (Appellant) (Respondent)

required the appellant to explain as to why the said liability should not be treated as ‘cessation of liability’ in accordance with Section 41(1) of the Act. 5. The assessee, in response, submitted as under :- “That the assessee continued to acknowledge these liabilities in its books of accounts ... nothing to show that the creditors had discharged the assessee from payments of these liabilities. v) that for the application of provisions of section 41(1), an assessee must get some benefit in real terms by way of remission or cessation of the liabilities.” 6. The AO found that

MUKESH VASANTKUMAR CHANDAN,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(2)(1), MUMBAI

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

nsheet, bank statements and other details during the course of\nassessment proceedings.\n15. The Assessing Officer made the following additions:\ni. Addition under section 41(1)\nRs. 5,74,420/-\nii.\nAddition on account of estimated income\nRs.\n2,40,000/-\niii. Addition under section 43CA ... erred in confirming the action of the Learned\nAssessing Officer in making the Addition by way extending the scope\n& gambit of section 41 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without\nconsidering the fact that the said amount of Rs. 574420 /= were\nnever fall within the scope of Addition

ACIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. QUALITY APPLICATION SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokaracit Circle-4(1)(1) Quality Application Room No. 642, 6Th Solution, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. B-Wing, 3Rd Floor, M. K. Road, Mumbai- Interface Building No. 400 020 16, Mindspace Link Road, Malad (W), Mumbai-400 064 Pan/Gir No. Aabca3829K (Applicant) (Respondent) Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Assessee By Shri K. Gopal & Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ld. Ars Date Of Hearing 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.02.2026

creditors had been submitted and were not disproved. It was also observed that the Assessing Officer had not examined whether the provisions of section 41(1) were applicable and had not undertaken any age-wise analysis of the creditors. The CIT(A) recorded that the Assessing Officer had arbitrarily allowed ... recorded in earlier paragraphs of the assessment order. 13. The addition in question has not been made by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. There is no finding by the Assessing Officer that the liability had ceased to exist. There is also no finding that

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

reversed the\nprovisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the\nyear under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and\nholding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in\ndouble taxation.\n31\nITA No. 4043/Mum/2025 and others\nOverseas Infrastructure Alliance (India ... liability in its\naudited financial statements year after year and there is no evidence on\nrecord to demonstrate that the liability has ceased. Section 41(1)\napplied by the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be upheld to consider such\nliability as income for year under consideration without there being any\nremission

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

reversed the\nprovisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the\nyear under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and\nholding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in\ndouble taxation.\n8.10. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made u/s. 41 ... liability in its\naudited financial statements year after year and there is no evidence on\nrecord to demonstrate that the liability has ceased. Section 41(1)\napplied by the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be upheld to consider such\nliability as income for year under consideration without there being any\nremission

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India