“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)

DCIT Circle 27(1), New Delhi vs. United Drilling Tools Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 5913/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(va)

confirmation from the sundry creditors or latest financial statement of the said creditors, it was therefore, held that such sum is taxable under section 41(1) of the Act. It is noted that the above issue had come up for consideration before the Jurisdictional High Court in the case ... recover the amount, it must be held that there was a cessation of the debts bringing the case within the scope of Section 41(1). In the case before us, the identical contention has been taken on behalf of the revenue, though the period for which the amount remained unpaid

M/S. Vadilal Dairy International Ltd., Maharashtra vs. The ACIT Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, Ground No. 2 is partly allowed

ITA 453/AHD/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 72(3)

From CBDT A. De-merged company (VDIL: Ice Cream) 1) To consider to exempt/grant relief to the company from the provisions of Section 41(1), 43-B, 45, 72 (3), 80 read with 139, 1150R and provisions of Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act 2) To consider to accept ... Income Tax Ack B. Resulting company (Dairy unit) 1) To consider to exempt/grant relief to the company from the provisions of Section 41(1), 43-B, 45, 72 (3) 80 read with 139, 115JB and provisions of Chapter XVII of the Income Tax Act. 2) To consider to accept payment

ACIT(OSD), Range-10, C. R Building, ITO, New Delhi vs. G B Springs Private Limited, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1554/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Shamim Yahya & Sh. Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Acit (Osd) Range – 10 Gb Springs Private C. R. Building Ito, Vs Limited, New Delhi Lajpat Nagar, B-17, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-Iv, Dayandad Colony, New Delhi -110024 Pan No.Aaacg2679Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr Dr Respondent By None Date Of Hearing: 27/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/12/2024

Section 41(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. VIMAL

Income Tax Officer-41(1)(5), Mumbai, Kautilya Bhawan Bkc vs. Swapnil Enterprises, Mumbai

ITA 5201/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Nov 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY

Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ratnagiri Ward, Ratnagiri

ITA 264/PUN/2024[AY 2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee being cessation of liability under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9.2 It is noticed that the assessee has failed to furnish the details in the form of confirmation or in the form ... Rs.19,72,000/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee being cessation of liability under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. (iv) Addition of Rs.18,00,800/- comprising of Rs.3,21,700/- and Rs.14,79,100/- u/s 43CA

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Cirle 1, Kolhapur vs. Hamaja Mohammed Malpekar, Maharashtra

ITA 23/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194C

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Auranagbad., Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 410/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Pvt Ltd, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 408/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad vs. Shreehari Associates Private Limited, Aurangabad

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

ITA 407/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Mr CH Naniwadekar & Kiran Sanmane [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ajaykumar Kesari & Arvind Desai [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250Section 253(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)(va)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE ‘B’ BENCH, PUNE BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND

Nanopix Integrated Software Solutions Pvt Ltd., Hubli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Hubli

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

ITA 1514/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Sanjeev Aditya, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, D.R

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)

head “trade payables”. The AO was of the view that there is a cessation of liability in terms of the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and hence, the same are required to be added as income of the assessee. Accordingly, the AO framed the assessment. 2.2 Aggrieved

Asian Hotels (North) Limited, New Delhi vs. Pr, CIT, Delhi-1, New Delhi

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

ITA 654/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek, Judicialmember M/S. Asian Hotels (North) Limited, Vs. Pr.Cit, 1A, Hotel Hyatt Regency, Delhi – 1. Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi – 110 066. (Pan: Aaaca0125H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Jain, Ca Revenue By : Shri Javed Akhtar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2024 Date Of Order : 26.11.2024 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Delhi-1 (Hereinafter Referred To ‘Ld. Pcit’) Dated 31.03.2021 For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are, Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2016 Declaring A Loss Of Rs.32,48,76,393/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Under Cass. The Assessment Was Completed Under Section 143 (3)

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Javed Akhtar, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 438

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI

Bhagwanram Chimnaramji Prajapat, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(3), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 494/HYD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. (Accountant Member), Shri K. Narasimha Chary (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: : Shri K.Meghnath Chowhan

Section 143(3)Section 263

redo the assessment as per discussion, after verifying the genuineness of sundry creditors backed by evidences, keeping in view all the provisions of section 41(1) and 40A(3A) of the Act. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.PCIT, assessee is in appeal before us. 6. Ld.Counsel

Piramal Enterprises Limited, Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Taxcircle 7(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 3436/Mum/2024 is allowed

ITA 3436/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi & Priyank GalaFor Respondent: Shri. Krishna Kumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 28Section 37Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

directly involved in embezzlement of Rs.363 lakhs and out of that Rs.229 lakhs was recovered, and which is offered to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. The list is duly provided in APB page 29 which is reproduced as below: - 3 Piramal Enterprises Limited 4 Piramal Enterprises Limited

Imsofer Manufacturing India Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7923/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Ajit Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Reuben Mathew Jacob, Sr. DR

Section 92C(2)Section 92D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘I’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Maideen Pitchai Rawther Peer Mohammed, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-5, Chennai

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

ITA 1993/CHNY/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1993/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Maideen Pitchai Rawther Peer Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Mohammed, New No. 55, Old No. 16, Income Tax, Perianna Meistry Street, Periamet, Non Corporate Circle - 5, Chennai 600 003. Chennai. [Pan: Aajpp4740R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Meenatchi Sundaram, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 11.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Ground Nos. 1(I) To (Iv) Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri K. Meenatchi Sundaram, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

1(i) to (iv) raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition made under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. 2 I.T.A. No.1993/Chny/24 3. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee ... determined the total income of the assessee at ₹.1,71,57,581/-, inter alia making addition on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act and also addition of ₹.85,795/- under section 14A of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2016. Against such additions, the assessee

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1843/CHNY/2024[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1841, 1842 & 1843/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 V. M/S. Bharat Technologies Auto – The Ito, Components Ltd., Company Ward-1(1), 177 Raheja Towers, Chennai. 7Th Floor, Unit No.708, Beta Wing, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aabcb 9835 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 4,11,40,145/- presumed to be the sum received as concessional relief in terms of Section 41(1)(b) of the Act in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 12. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate ... that provisions of Section 41(1)(b) of the Act had no application to the factual matrix of the present case and ought to have appreciated that the mechanical action in bringing to tax the disputed sum in terms of Section 41(1)(b) of the Act should be reckoned

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1842/CHNY/2024[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

Bharat Technologies Auto Components Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, Company Ward 1(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1841/CHNY/2024[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2024AY 2003-04

For Appellant: Mr.S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT

Section 41(1)(b)Section 72ASection 72A(2)

M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT RG. - 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the present cross-appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7341/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhaildcit – 3(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 ............... Appellant Maharashtra V/S Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Bhawan, 226-Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 Pan : Aaacb3370K ……………… Respondent Bajaj Auto Limited, Bajaj Bhavan, 226-Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400021 ……………… Appellant Pan : Aaacb3370K V/S Dcit – 3(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400020 Maharashtra …………….. Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patela/wShri Charu Mittal and Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 80H

action of the Assessing Officer in including a sum of Rs.23,71,572/- being sundry credit balances written back under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. (c) In holding that miscellaneous receipts amounting to Rs.50,78,91,907/- comprising of scrap sales, miscellaneous scrap sales and sundry

DCIT RG. 3(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Bajaj Auto Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the present cross-appeal filed by the assessee and the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 7226/MUM/2005[1997-1998]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Nov 2024AY 1997-1998

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patela/wShri Charu Mittal and Shri Kirit KamdarFor Respondent: Shri Sunil A. Umap, CIT-DR

Section 148Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)Section 43BSection 80H