← 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)

DCIT Central Circle-26, New Delhi vs. Dhaneshwari Wood Products Ltd, Assam

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 728/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. P. J. Bhide, CA &For Respondent: Ms. Sapna Bhatia, CIT-DR
Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Kul Bharat, Judicial Member Dr. B. R

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2994/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in that year, because under this section, actual write off is allowable and not the provision. This is a pre-requirement of section 41(1) that where the allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year, in respect of loss, expenditure or trade liability incurred ... assessee, and the same is subsequently ceased or has been remitted, then there is income under section 41(1) of the Act. Since in the present case, no deduction has been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision

The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax., Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2954/AHD/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in that year, because under this section, actual write off is allowable and not the provision. This is a pre-requirement of section 41(1) that where the allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year, in respect of loss, expenditure or trade liability incurred ... assessee, and the same is subsequently ceased or has been remitted, then there is income under section 41(1) of the Act. Since in the present case, no deduction has been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision

National Dairy Development Board, Anand vs. The ACIT., Anand Circle, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2004/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in that year, because under this section, actual write off is allowable and not the provision. This is a pre-requirement of section 41(1) that where the allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year, in respect of loss, expenditure or trade liability incurred ... assessee, and the same is subsequently ceased or has been remitted, then there is income under section 41(1) of the Act. Since in the present case, no deduction has been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision

The ACIT, Anand Circle, Anand vs. National Dairy Development Board, Anand

In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1873/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Ahmedabad17 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Shah & Ms. Aparna Parlekr A.RsFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(xii)

deduction in that year, because under this section, actual write off is allowable and not the provision. This is a pre-requirement of section 41(1) that where the allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year, in respect of loss, expenditure or trade liability incurred ... assessee, and the same is subsequently ceased or has been remitted, then there is income under section 41(1) of the Act. Since in the present case, no deduction has been allowed to the assessee, in the year of making the provision, and it cannot be allowed because provision

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 31/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 30/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

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

DCIT, Chennai vs. M/S, Sundaram Finance Ltd., Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 29/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

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

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 12/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

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

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 11/CHNY/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

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

Sundaram Finance Ltd, Chennai vs. DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit-1, Chennai

In the result, revenue’s appeal for all the years stand partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 10/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 11 /Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 3. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 12/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. Dcit बनाम/ 21, Patullos Road, Large Taxpayer Unit -1, Vs. Chennai – 600 002. Chennai – 600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 29/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2012-13) & 5. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.30/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 6. आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 31/Chny/2018 (िनधाEरणवषE / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit M/S. Sundaram Finance Ltd. बनाम/ Large Taxpayer Unit -1, 21, Patullos Road, Vs. Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 002. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4944-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. Ar Department By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit –Ld. Dr

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, (Advocate) - Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT –Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 176

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

Autograph Cars (India) Private Limited, Bandra East, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2942/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Autograph Cars (India) Pvt. Ltd., Flat No. 2130, Building No. 42, Anand Chs, Gandhi Nagar, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051. Pan: Aafca 0420J ...... Appellant Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income, Circle-14(1), Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mohammed Obaid Ansari, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 250Section 32(2)Section 41(1)Section 80

Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in failing to consider and grant relief to the extent of Rs. 3, 84,188/- added under Section, 41(1) of the Income tax Act, being an amount outstanding as due as at the end of the previous year and paid to the concerned ... Income tax (Appeals) erred in failing to consider and grant relief in respect amounts totalling to Rs. 1, 73, 17,062/- added under Section 41(1) in the assessment, being amounts outstanding as due as at the end of the previous year and written back as and when they were

M/S. World Trade Impex Ltd., Baroda vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5, Baroda

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

ITA 1580/AHD/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri SudhankarVerma, Sr. D.R
Section 41(1)

that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act. 7. The assessee in the present case, a limited company, is engaged in the business of trading in plastic items & polymers ... grey market and the same was accommodated for writing off credit balance of impugned party. Therefore, the AO, by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, treated the amount written off by assessee as in the guise of grey sale and added the same to the total

World Trade Impex Ltd., Baroda vs. The ACIT., Circle-4, Baroda

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

ITA 639/AHD/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2024AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri MK Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri SudhankarVerma, Sr. D.R
Section 41(1)

that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 70,50,096/- on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act. 7. The assessee in the present case, a limited company, is engaged in the business of trading in plastic items & polymers ... grey market and the same was accommodated for writing off credit balance of impugned party. Therefore, the AO, by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, treated the amount written off by assessee as in the guise of grey sale and added the same to the total

Dhanraj Ramchandra Chandwani, Kolhapur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 260/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No.260/PUN./2024

Income Tax Office -34(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Prime Developers, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4246/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

M/S Prime Developers, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax -25(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed and appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4152/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SMT RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 41Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘C‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Mogulkata Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 4(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 201/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 44A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण कोलकाता 'एसएमसी' पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA डॉ. मनीष

DCIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi vs. Surya Kiran Finance Corporation, New Delhi

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

ITA 974/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A)-30, New Delhi. Before him, the assessee has filed detailed submissions. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, the Ld. CIT(A) given substantial relief to the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs.1,57,42,260/- and sustained the addition of Rs.8,74,134/-.

Section 143(2)Section 68Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH

M/S. Techno Construction, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4120/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2009-10 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Techno Construction Vs Ito, Flat No.44, Santosh Apartments, Ward-27(3), Plot No.39B, Sector-6, New Delhi. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Aacft5711D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Arora, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shyam M. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.03.2016 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.91/15-16 Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Dated 11.02.2014 Passed U/S 144/147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter

For Appellant: Shri M.P. Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shyam M. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 41(1)

received in the year under consideration has to be treated as trading receipts and the same is taxable as per provision of section 41(1) and 41(4) of the Income tax Act,1961.” 2. Heard and perused the record. On hearing both the sides it comes up that primary