← 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)

Arun Kumar Chaturvedi, Kanpur vs. ACIT-3, Kanpur

ITA 108/LKW/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow20 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.108/Lkw/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Arun Kumar Chaturvedi 12/9, Vishno Puri Colony, Nawab Ganj, Kanpur. Pan: Abcpc6864F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3 Kanpur . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : None [Adjournment Rejected] Revenue By : Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/06/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Filed U/S 253(1)(A) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac/Cit(A)’] Din & Order Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/ 1059274800(1) Dt. 02/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 31/03/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Anent To The Case Are That; 2.1 The Assessee Contractor Is A Proprietor Of M/S Hi-Tech Controls Filed His Return Of Income Declaring ₹16,43,890/- For The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny By

For Appellant: None [Adjournment Rejected]For Respondent: Mr Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 251Section 253(1)(a)Section 40Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH LUCKNOW BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G. D

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Pearl Printers and Publishers Pvt. Ltd, Chennai

Appeal stand dismissed which make assessee’s cross-objections infructuous

ITA 1043/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1043/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Dcit M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Central Circle-2(4), बनाम/ Vs. Chennai-34. 8/16, Mogappair West, Chennai-600 058. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) & 2.Cross Objection No.11/Chny/2024 (In Ita No.1043/Chny/2023) (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2017-18) बनाम/ M/S. Pearl Printers & Publishers (P) Ltd. Dcit 8/16, Mogappair West, Vs. Central Circle-2(4), Chennai-600 058. Chennai-34. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcp-7244-H (अपीलाथ"/Cross Objector) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओरसे/ Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar (Cit) –Ld. Dr " थ" की ओरसे/ Assessee By : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh (Advocates)- Ld. Ars सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07-03-2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 03-06-2024 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 Aforesaid Cross-Appeals For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. DineshFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar (CIT) –Ld. DR
Section 153ASection 153C

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “बी” "ायपीठ चे"ई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, CHENNAI माननीय "ी महावीर िसंह

Acres Buildwell Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1 (3), New Delhi

The appeal is allowed

ITA 2191/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Acres Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Ward 1(3), 6-D, Sainik Farms, New Delhi. Khan Pur, New Delhi – 110 062. Pan: Aaacj0152F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Rano Jain, Advocate & Shri Venketesh Chourasia, Adv. Revenue By : Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 18.08.2022 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-30, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.10389/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 10.12.2019, Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-1(3), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Ms Rano Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)Section 68

erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.35,00,000/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 41(1) of the Act converting the same having been made under Section 68 of the Act. (ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both ... appears at Note No.2.2.1 to Financial Statements as at 31.03.2017. Thus it was contended that since no liability has ceased to exist Section 41(1) of the Act should not apply. 5.1 It was further submitted that the Revenue has not challenged the conclusion of the CIT(A) that additions