“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)

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Hsbc Electronic Data Processing India Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1632/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora, C.AFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 115Section 115JSection 251(1)(a)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

Treatment of Unclaimed Liabilities: 4. erred in facts and in law by treating the unclaimed liabilities as income under section 41(1) of the Act, without considering the fact that the liabilities were neither written back in the books of account nor credited to the profit & loss account; 4.1. erred ... adding back balances of unclaimed liabilities appearing under Current Liabilities in the balance sheet as 'deemed income chargeable to tax' under section 41(1) of the Act amounting to Rs.45,93,627; Additional Ground 4.2. Without prejudice to the above, erred in law and on facts in setting-aside

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-13(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Pratham Telecom India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 479/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

Assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24/03/2014 making addition of INR 2,57,88,258/- under Section 41(1) of the Act on account of alleged cessation of various sundry creditors outstanding as on 31/03/2011. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. ITO 22(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3036/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3035/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CIT 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3034/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Comissioner of Income Tax CIT 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3033/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Falguni Shane Peacock, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 22(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3032/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 37Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Seikh Abdul Sabir Golahat Nimtala Masjid, Burdwan vs. CIT(A), Burdwan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 311/KOL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 69

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “सी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH: KOLKATA "ी राजपाल यादव

Seikh Abdul Sabir Golahat Nimtala Masjid, Burdwan vs. CIT(A), Burdwan

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 310/KOL/2023[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 143(3)Section 2(24)Section 28Section 37(1)Section 69

ITO Ward - 13(1), New Delhi vs. Jagdamba Foods Ltd, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 661/DEL/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Deydr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Parul Singh, Sr. DR

Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

there has been a cessation of liability to the extent of reduction in liabilities/creditors during the year and the same is income under section 41(1) then there is a corresponding reduction in trade receivable which will be allowable deduction as bad debt. And both these amounts will become part ... profit and loss account. The reduction in liability will be the income under section 41(1) and the reduction in trade receivable will be an allowable deduction under section 36(2) of the IT Act. Thus, either way these amount cannot be considered as an income of the assessee. Hence

Parvez Ahmed Khalkullah Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-41(1) (3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1128/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalparvez Ahmed Khalkullah Choudhary C/410, C-Wing, Ivy Homes Cts 750 Others, Village Ward Kurla (West), Kurla S. O. Mumbai-400 070 Pan: Cizpk9479G ..... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward 41(1) (3), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 ..... Respondent & Ito, Ward 41(1) (3), Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C-43, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400 051 ...... Appellant Vs.

For Appellant: Shri Tejveer Singh, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri H. M. Bhatt, Ld. DR

Section 234ASection 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “C”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Rajesh Products, Tonk, Rajasthan vs. ACIT, Jaipur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 626/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Jain, CA (Th. V.C)For Respondent: Shri Bhanwar Singh Ratnu, (CIT-DR)

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Interkiln Industries Pvt Ltd, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 947/AHD/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Interkiln Industries P.Ltd. Ahmedabad. Vs Sanghvi Chambers B/H. Canara Bank Navrangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaaci 4563 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Jaimin A. Gandhi, Ar Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Guptathis Appeal Has Been Filed By The Department Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi Dated 5.10.2023 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Are As Under:

For Respondent: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr.DR

Section 24Section 250Section 28Section 41(1)

waiver of the loan by its bank under OTS, the assessee explained that the same was not taxable in terms of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The order of the AO, however reveals that he rejected this contention of the assessee and relying upon the decision ... same being not taxable u/s 41(1) of the Act. Thus, while the assessee contended that it was not taxable under section 41(1) of the Act, the AO, without considering its taxability under section 41(1) of the Act, went on to hold that it was taxable under section

Neeraj Gupta, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Jpr, Jaipur

ITA 608/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Jain, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 288Section 41(1)

claim of the assessee, but, actually which had ceased to exist. This addition came to be made while resorting to the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. 6. Second addition to the tune of Rs. 1,92,691/-, was made by the Assessing officer, while observing that ... aside. 9. At the same time, Learned AR for the assessee has submitted that this is a case where provisions of section 41(1) of the Act do not come into application, reason being that the assessee had carried forward said liabilities from year to year, and paid that liability

DCIT, Corporate Circle-5(1), Chennai vs. Rakindo Developers P Ltd, Chennai

The appeal stand dismissed

ITA 2098/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Amandhon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.2098/Chny/2017 (िनधा9रणवष9 / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Rakindo Developers P. Ltd बनाम/ Corporate Circle-5(1), Trimex Towers, No.1, Subbaraya Avenue, C.P. Ramaswamy Road, Alwarpet, Vs. Chennai. Chennai-600 018. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.Aadcr-8015-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.Ar " थ"कीओरसे/Revenue By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-05-2024 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-07-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ()

For Appellant: Shri D.Anand (Advocate)-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 37(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ‘ए’"ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार

DCIT Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Hps Concrete, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1326/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarasstt. Year: 2017-18 Dcit, Central Vs. M/S. Hps Concrete Private Circle, Ghaziabad Limited D-988, New Friends Colony, Delhi – 110 065 Pan Aadch0928C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

1) of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. 7. Learned representative for Department submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in applying provisions of section 41(1) of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has surrendered the amount of Rs. 4,42,00,000/- under the head 'Other ... statement has never stated that it had written the said amount back in its books of account in view of Explanation 1 of section 41(1) of the Act. 9. Learned representative for assessee submitted that the AO has invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act with reference

DCIT, Central Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Hps Concrete Private Limited, Delhi

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1325/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

1) of Sec. 115BBE of the Act. 7. Learned representative for Department submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in applying provisions of section 41(1) of the Act without considering the fact that the assessee has surrendered the amount of 1,80,00,000/- under the head 'Other Income ... statement has never stated that it had written the said amount back in its books of account in view of Explanation 1 of section 41(1) of the Act. 9. Learned representative for assessee submitted that the AO has invoked the provisions of Section 115BBE of the Act with reference

Raghvendra Pratap Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 28, Kolkata

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

ITA 612/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 40Section 69C

ITA No. 612/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Raghvendra Pratap Singh THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri

Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 636/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 07, 08 & 09/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Sundaram Finance Limited, V. Tax, 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 34. [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 26, 27 & 28/Chny/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2011-12 Sundaram Finance Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income V. 21, Patullos Road, Tax, Chennai – 600 002. Large Taxpayer Unit -1, [Pan: Aaacs-4944-A] Chennai – 34. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,‘बी’"यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी टी वक", "याियक

Sundram Finance Lomited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Ltu, Chennai

ITA 81/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri. R. vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. V. Nandakumar, CIT

Section 143(3)