← 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)

ACIT, Circle-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Ltd., Ludhiana

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 117/CHANDI/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession carried on by the assessee, in terms of section 41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with

M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana vs. ACIT, C-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 486/CHANDI/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession carried on by the assessee, in terms of section 41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with

DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana vs. M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 260/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession carried on by the assessee, in terms of section 41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with

M/S Vardhman Textiles Limited, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-1, Ludhiana

In the result, appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed whereas the Cross appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 187/CHANDI/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN (Vice President), SHRI. SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, Advocate and Shri Pankaj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 80I

deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession carried on by the assessee, in terms of section 41(1)(a) of the Act; that it is, therefore, eligible for deduction under section 80IB ; and that otherwise also, since the payment of excise duty is directly linked with

DCIT, Circle-2, Durgapur vs. Kalyan Educational Society, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the 18

ITA 1176/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ………. Appellant Vs. Kalyan Educational Society ………… Respondent 13, Dum Dum Cossipore Road, Dum Dum, Kolkata-700074. (Pan: Aabtk2860K) & C.O. No. 03/Kol/2024 In I.T.A. No.1176/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kalyan Educational Society ………… Cross Objector Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Durgapur ……….. Respondent Appearances By: Shri Raja Sengupta, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Appeared For Revenue Shri S. K. Tulsiyan, Advocate & Ms. Puja Somani, Ca Appeared For Assessee/Cross Objector. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : 12.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : 10.10.2024 Order Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year (In Short “Ay”) 2017-18 Are Directed Against The Order Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Short The “Act”) By Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Appeals), National

Section 12ASection 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice President & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member

Golden Moment Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8021/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri M. Balaganeshgolden Moment Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, C/O. R. C. Rai & Associates, Karnal 203, 2Nd Floor, Akash Deep Building, 26A, Barakhamba Road, (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aadcg4401D Assessee By : Shri R. C. Rai, Ca Ms. Nagma, Adv Revenue By: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 10/10/2024

For Appellant: Shri R. C. Rai, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr. DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Accordingly, the money shown as outstanding as amounts payable were treated as not genuine and treated as cessation of liability in terms of Section 41(1) of the Act and addition of ₹3,89,21,998/- was made by the ld AO. This action of the ld AO was upheld ... assessee, the debt gets acknowledged by the assessee and there cannot be any remission or cessation of liability in terms of Section 41(1) of the Act. Further, the assessee has placed on record the confirmations given by all the 3 sundry creditors before the ld AO, which fact

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(4), Mumbai vs. Samagra Wealthmax Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the learned AO is dismissed

ITA 2165/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Oct 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm Dy. Commissioner Of Samagra Wealthmax Income Tax, Private Limited, Central Circle-3(4) 5Th Floor, Sunteck Centre Room No. 1915, 19Th 37-40 Vs. Floor, Subhash Road, Air India Building, Vile Parle East, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaqcs5451E

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi &For Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule – CIT
Section 19Section 41(1)

income of the assessee company for A.Y. 2018-19 either as income from other sources or business income by invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. 06. The learned Assessing Officer alternatively also held that assessee is not the holding company of Celina Buildcon, but Orval Corporate ... liability for which allowance or deduction was allowed to Celina, but it was by way of share capital and, therefore, the provisions of Section 41(1) does not apply. viii. Thus, the claim of the assessee is that neither the above sum is taxable u/s.56

Amar Pratap Steels Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 108/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, “A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Saket Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 2(3) Jaipur, Jaipur

In the result appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 646/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Satwika Jhan, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam (CIT) a
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

name of the above parties the addition was made for an amount of Rs. 3,17,55,786/- as per provisions of section 41(1) of the Act holding it to be cession of liability in the form of sundry creditor. While doing so the ld. AO relied upon ... Ground of Appeal No.1: Addition of Rs. 3,17,55,786/- u/s. 41(1) of the Act 1. That for ready reference, section 41(1) of the Act is reproduced as hereunder: Profits chargeable to tax. 41.(1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment

M/S.Shimmer Textiles(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Kolkata

ITA 786/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, Addl. CIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT

Killick Nixon Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4016/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2024AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : Shri.K.Gopal & Ms Neha Paranjpe.AR Shr
Section 115Section 143(1)Section 144Section 271Section 41(1)Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

JCIT (OSD) Circle-2, Trichy vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Ltd., Karur

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for assessment year

ITA 635/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, V. Tax, Finance &Control Dept., Circle -2(1), Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, The Joint Commissioner Of V. Finance &Control Dept., Income Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2, Karur – 639 002. No.44, Williams Road, [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] Contanment, Trichy – 620 001. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha:

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

branches of assessee-bank that was to be refunded only if any customer would claim, is to be added to income under section 41(1) of the Act. 7. The CIT(A) erred in allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee towards ex-gratia payment. 8. The CIT(A) failed

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle - 2 (1), Trichy

ITA 620/CHNY/2020[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon'Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon'Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 620/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Finance &Control Dept., V. Tax, Erode Road, Circle -2(1), Karur - 639 002. Trichy. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 635/Chny/2020 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle -2, No.44, Williams Road, Contanment, Trichy - 620 001. V. M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Finance &Control Dept., Erode Road, Karur - 639 002. [Pan: Aaact-3373-J] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Assessee By : Shri. Ananthan, Ca & Smt. R. Lalitha, Ca Department By : Shri. Nilay Baran Som, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S. R. Raghunatha: These Two Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Trichy, Dated 16.03.2020 & Pertains To

For Appellant: Shri. Ananthan, CA & Smt. R. Lalitha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Nilay Baran Som, CIT
Section 145Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(2)(v)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'ए' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

DCIT, Mumbai vs. A.P.I. Civilcon Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue are

ITA 2625/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Amarjit Singh & Shri. Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Samrudhi TawdeFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. DR)
Section 234ASection 250Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

M/S. Dream Logistics Company Limited, Yallapur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 526/BANG/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Vilas V Shinde, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 41(1)

upholding the addition/disallowance of a sum of Rs.2,60,00,000/- us 41(1) of the Act, without appreciating that the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are wholly inapplicable to the case of the appellant for the year under appeal under the facts and in the circumstances ... once the payment was made to the sellers, the assessee’s responsibility ends there. The ld. A.R. further contended that to invoke section 41(1) of the Act, there is no cessation or remission of any liability and therefore, invoking the said provision is also not correct

M/S. Mariko Industries Ltd vs. The ACIT Cen Cir 35

ITA 1521/MUM/2004[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Sept 2024AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am)

Section 41(1)Section 80HSection 80I

company filed this appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai on the following issues :- i) Sales tax refund received by the appellant company under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act (the Act for short). ii) Restricting deduction u/s. 80IA of the Act relating to Goa and Kanjikode Industrial Undertakings ... received/obtained refund and hence even on mercantile system of accounting, the appellant company has not received refund from the Sales Tax Department and section 41(1) of the Act is not applicable to it. It was further pleaded that Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Carbon

Jain Housing, Chennai vs. PCIT-1, Chennai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1516/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1516/Chny/2024 (िनधा*रणवष* / Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Jain Housing Pcit बनाम/ 98/99, Habibullah Road, T. Nagar Chennai-1. Vs. Chennai-600 017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaefj-2408-B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Shrenik Chordia (Ca)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) -Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-08-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-09-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shrenik Chordia (CA)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) -Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी एबी

Dreams Estate, Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Pune

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 403/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri B C Malakar And CA Yuvraj BhandareFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 144Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “A” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SATBEER

Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 978/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

parties being Plash Foundation for Rs.2,31,000 and Pari Ashish Kanubhai for Rs.56,000. The AO has applied the provision of Section 41(1) and contended that as these balances are non- moving credits, addition is required to be made. Assessee has classified such balance as sundry creditors from ... provisions of Section 41(1) are applicable with reference to business transaction being unpaid amount pertaining to expenditure claimed in Profit & Loss Account in the earlier Assessment Years. Ld CIT[A] confirmed the addition in the absence of any documentary evidences. I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys

Saketkumar Rugnath Tanna, Ahmedabad vs. The DCIT, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

ITA 977/AHD/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

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

Section 132Section 133ASection 139(1)Section 153A

parties being Plash Foundation for Rs.2,31,000 and Pari Ashish Kanubhai for Rs.56,000. The AO has applied the provision of Section 41(1) and contended that as these balances are non- moving credits, addition is required to be made. Assessee has classified such balance as sundry creditors from ... provisions of Section 41(1) are applicable with reference to business transaction being unpaid amount pertaining to expenditure claimed in Profit & Loss Account in the earlier Assessment Years. Ld CIT[A] confirmed the addition in the absence of any documentary evidences. I.T.A Nos. 977 & 978 /Ahd/2019 & Ors. A.Ys