“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)

Addl CIT RG 7(1), Mumbai vs. Piramal Enterprises Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Piramal Healthcare Ltd) (As Ultimate Successor to Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai

ITA 5091/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2005-06 M/S. Piramal Enterprises Dy. Commissioner Of Limited (Formerly Known Income Tax, As Piramal Healthcare Range-8(2)(1), Limited) (Earlier Known As Mumbai. Nicholas Piramal India Ltd.), Vs. Piramal Tower, Agastya Corporate Park, Lbs Marg, Kamani Junction, Kurla (West), Mumbai – 400 070 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2005-06 Dy. Commissioner Of M/S. Piramal Enterprises Income Tax, Limited (Formerly Known Circle-8(2)(1), As Piramal Healthcare [Erstwhile Dcit Circle- Ltd.) (As Ultimate 7(1)], Successor To Nicholas Vs. Mumbai. Piramal India Ltd.), Piramal Tower, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aaacn4538P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

controversy before the Tribunal is that whether the difference of deferred sales tax liability is chargeable to tat as business income under section 41(1) being remission of cessation of trading liability or the same is exempted as capital receipt. (Para 32] 2. The argument of the revenue ... that the assessee having paid Rs. 3.37 crores has obtained for himself anything in terms of section 41(1), but the assessee is deemed to have received the sum of Rs. 414 crores, which is the difference between the original amount to be remitted with the payment made. The revenue

Piramal Healthcare Ltd ( Earlier Knownas Nicholas Piramal India Ltd), Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2010[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jan 2024AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Priyank Gala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P.D. Chogule, (Addl. CIT) Sr. A.R

Section 28Section 40Section 45

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 205/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.204/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) & 2.आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.205/Chny/2023 (िनधा*रण वष* / Assessment Year: 2004-05) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit / Ito बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle-6(2) / 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Corporate Ward-3(1) / Vs. Chennai-600 032. Chennai-600 034. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

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

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 204/CHNY/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 194CSection 41(1)Section 43B

Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 2635/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2635/Chny/2019 (िनधा)रण वष) / Assessment Year: 2016-17) M/S. Southern Petrochemical Acit बनाम Industries Corporation Limited Corporate Circle -6(2) 88, Spic House, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 034. / Vs. Chennai-600 032. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-4668-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (" थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj Kumar Parida (Advocates)-Ld. Ars " थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Nilay Baran Som (Cit) & Shri Ar V Sreenivasan (Addl. Cit)-Ld. Drs सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16-10-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10-01-2024 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri R. Vijayaraghavan & Shri Saroj KumarFor Respondent: Shri Nilay Baran Som (CIT) &

Section 143(3)

Petrofac International Uae Llc, Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Int. Taxation, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 1894/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Dr. B.R.R. Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 43A

issue. Ground is allowed for statistical purposes. 18. In ground no. 4, the assessee has challenged addition of Rs. 36,55,722/- under section 41(1) of the Act. Briefly the facts are, in course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticed that one of the creditors of the assessee ... Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain why write-off of the account should not be treated as cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act and added to the income. In response, the assessee submitted that liability still exists in its books of account

M/S Autograph Cars (India), Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Income Tax Department, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2928/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआअसं.2928/मुं/2023 (िन.व. 2013-14) M/S. Autograph Cars (India) Private Limited, C/O. R.K.Khanna & Associates, 402, Regent Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400 021 Pan: Aafca-0420-J ...... अपीलाथ"/Appellant बनाम Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai – 400 020 ..... "ितवादी/Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Raja B. SinghFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 32Section 41(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई पीठ “ए ”,मुंबई "ी िवकास अव"थी, "ाियक सद" एवं सु"ी प"ावती. एस, लेखाकार सद" के

Prarambh Multitrade (P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1014/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No.1014/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Prarambh Multitrade Pvt. Ltd..........................…...……………....Appellant Room No.401A, 154, Lenin Sarani, Kolkata-700013. [Pan: Aaccp8985C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolkata........................................................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D. Shah, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Manas Mondal, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 06, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 24.08.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’) Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Order Passed U/S 250 Is Bad In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case. 2. That The Hon'Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) - Nfac Erred In Law As Well As On Facts Of The Case By Not Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing To The Appellant Company.

Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer by making addition of sundry creditors of Rs.2,22,65,000/- by invoking the provision of section 41(1) and making addition by treating the aforesaid amount as cessation of liability. 7. That the appellant craves to leave, add, amend or adduce

Rajesh G Jain, Mira-Bhayandar vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Thane Park

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

ITA 150/MUM/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Lalit MunoyatFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 250Section 254(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Grand Foundry Limited, Mumbai vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle -7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3051/MUM/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Dec 2023AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Gagan Goyal ()

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

record any material in support of its action, therefore, the Assessing Officer also added the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- under section 41(1) of the Act, to the income of the Assessee. 5. Further, the Assessing Officer also observed that for the year under consideration, the Assessee

Vrundavan Restaurant, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1) (New) Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara (Old), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Vrundavan Restaurant, I.T.O., (1)-U-2, Ashirwad Square, Udhna Ward-1(2) (1), Surat- Vs. Magdalla Road, Surat 395007- New, New, (2)- 39/1, 4Th Floor, Vaibhav Ward 1(2)(5), Vadodara- Residency, Arunday Crossword Circle Old. Alkapuri, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007 – Old. Pan No. Aagfv 8310 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 41(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Dr. ARJUN LAL SAINI

Priyamda Media & Infotainment Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1598/DEL/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143Section 145Section 271Section 40aSection 41Section 41(1)

case of Dattatrary Poultry Breeding Farm P. Ltd 415 ITR 407 is worth mentioning here and the same read as under :- “16. Section 41(1) of the Act can be applied, provided the following conditions are fulfilled: - In the assessment of any assessee, an allowance or deduction has been made ... year: Thus, where a debt due from the assessee is foregone by the creditor in a later year, it can be taxed under section 41(1) of the Act in such later year when it was foregone. Section 41(1) of the Act, therefore, contemplates existence of a debt/liability

Priyamda Media & Infotainment P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7489/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Kul Bharat

Section 133Section 133(6)Section 143Section 145Section 271Section 40aSection 41Section 41(1)

Vitrag Prints, Surat vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 338/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat14 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.338/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Vitrag Prints, Vs. The Acit (Osd), K-2619 To 2622, Millenium Ward -1(2)(5), Textile Market Ring Road, Surat. Surat - 395002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aalfv5612L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Jaykishan Goel, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By 22/09/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 14/12/2023

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

account by assessee and not written back, such liabilities could not be held to be subsisting liability". The Hon'ble ITAT held:: "Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Remission and cessation of trading liability (Creditor's confirmation) - Assessment year 2010-11 -Whether liability cease to exist ... terms of section 41(1) where it is outstanding for a long period without any payment, despite it being reflected in books of account -Held, yes - Assessee company, had shown sundry creditors outstanding for six to twenty years - Assessing Officer made inquiries under section 133(6) about said creditors

Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6524/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

notices were duly served on the assessee. The AO completed the assessment by making additions as listsed below: (i) Cessation of liability under section 41(1) – Rs. 7,52,952/- (ii) Unreconciled receipts as per Form 26AS vis-à-vis books of accounts. – Rs. 5,13,731/- (iii) Provision ... assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO towards cessation of liability under section 41(1) and also the provision made for warranty. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition made towards the difference between the amount appearing in Form 26AS

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Maquet Medical India Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 5789/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 115Section 115O(4)Section 234DSection 250Section 41(1)

Larsen & Toubro Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

ITA 6589/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2023AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri J. D. Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Yogesh Kamat

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 40A(9)Section 80HSection 92C

liability at the present value. Therefore, as there is no „benefit‟ obtained by or accruing to the assessee, the question of applicability of section 41(1) of the Act does not arise. In both the Supreme Court and the High Court decisions were concerned with pre-payment of sales ... deferred loan liability at the net 40 present value. We find merits in the case of the assessee that the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are not applicable, as there is no remission or cessation of 37 the liability. The remission or cessation of liability contemplates

M/S High Range Foods Private Ltd, Kochi vs. ITO Corporate Ward 1(3), Kochi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 22/COCH/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dashigh Range Foods Pvt. Ltd. The Income Tax Officer 28/3030, Cheruparambath Road Corporate Ward – 1(3) Vs. Kadavanthra, Kochi 682020 Kochi [Pan:Aaach6076L] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P.M. Veeramani, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.12.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.06.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [Cit(A)], Disallowing The Assessee’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dated 27.12.2017 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16. 2. The Appeal, Filed On 09.01.2023, Is Delayed By 135 Days. The Condonation Petition Accompanying The Appeal, Which Is Supported By A Sworn Affidavit Dated 29.12.2022 By Shri Simon John, The Director & Principal Officer Of The Assessee- Company, Explains The Delay In Terms Of Non-Conveyance Of The Impugned Order Inasmuch As It’S Uploading On The Itba Was Not Accompanied By A Simultaneous Uploading On The Mobile Application As Well As A Real Time Alert Through Sms, As Required By Clause 11 Of The National Faceless Appeal Scheme (Nfas), So That The Order Cannot Be Regarded As Served On 28.6.2022, The Date Of The Impugned Order And

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Veeramani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN Before Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member and Shri Manomohan Das, Judicial

Jalaram Appliances Polymers, Goregaon (E) vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 31(2)(1), Bandra

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2787/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

year under consideration on 3/10/2015 which was subsequently selected for scrutiny under CASS, which resulted into making the disallowances/additions of Rs.32,000/- under section 41(1) of the Act on account of sundry creditors and Rs.7,60,278/-on restriction of deduction under section upto 25% (Rs.7

ACIT Circle-21(1), New Delhi vs. Real Impact Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 9459/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Manpreet Singh Kapoor, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)

Technosonics 06.09.2016 13. Hence keeping in view the facts of the case, decision of the ld. CIT(A), applicability of provisions of section 41(1) and the judgments in CIT v. Vardhman Overseas Ltd. in ITA No, 7 Real Impact Pvt. Ltd., 774/2009 decided