← All Phrases

“Section 41(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 41Section 41(1)883 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 41(1) is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172), cited in 621 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 41(1)

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.
222 ITR 344 · 1996 · Supreme Court
223
citing judgments

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd.
261 ITR 275 · 2003 · Supreme Court
204
citing judgments

A liability recognized in accordance with the Accounting Standards prescribed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) is an allowable expense for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.
236 ITR 518 · 1999 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

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.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. CIT
261 ITR 501 · 2003 · High Court
147
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act cannot be invoked if the assessee has not been granted a deduction for the relevant liability in earlier years.

Prakash Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
201 ITR 684 · 1993 · Supreme Court
133
citing judgments

Compensatory interest or damages paid for a breach of contract, arising in the normal course of business, are allowable as a deduction under section 37(1) as wholly and exclusively incurred for business purposes. This principle extends to indirect taxes paid in the course of business, which are admissible as business expenditure.

CIT v. Oswal Agro Mills Ltd.
341 ITR 467 · 2012 · High Court
108
citing judgments

The Legislature abolished terminal depreciation under section 32(1)(iii) and the taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2), replacing these provisions with the requirement to reduce sale proceeds of depreciable assets from the block of assets.

Judgments citing Section 41(1)

Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd., Ernakulam vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income T Ax Corp.Circle1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 738/COCH/2023[AY-2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Jun 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Prakash Chand Yadav, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Anna Aluminium Company (P) Ltd. .......... Appellant Kp 111 847, Kizhakkambalam, Aluva 683562 [Pan: Aafca6562R] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Harikrishnanunny, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sundarasan S., Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.06.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 26.08.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act. The Return Of Income For Ay 2017-18 Was Filed On 30.10.2017 Declaring Income Of Rs. 7,50,26,610/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Dcit, Corporate Circle 1(1), Kochi (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 23.12.2019

For Appellant: Shri Harikrishnanunny, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sundarasan S., CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

decision on outstanding creditors only on the ground that sundry creditors are outstanding for a period of 3 years, invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The mere fact that sundry creditors are outstanding for more than 3 years does not mean that the liability had ceased ... exist and the provisions of section 41(1) have no application. In this context reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Reddi Sahakara Bank Niyamitha [2017] 395 ITR 652. Therefore, this ground of appeal stands allowed