“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)

ITO 28 )(2)(3), Navi Mumbai vs. M/S N G Group, Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6748/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am M/S Ng Group Ito, 28(2)(3) Plot No.8, Sector 11, Opp R. No. 310, 3 Rd Floor, Juinagar Rly Station, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vs. Vashi Navi Mumbai Sanpada, Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai–400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E M/S Ng Group Ito, 28(2)(3) Plot No.8, Sector 11, Opp R. No. 310, 3 Rd Floor, Juinagar Rly Station, Vashi Rly Station Complex, Vs. Sanpada, Vashi Navi Mumbai Mumbai-400 703 Navi Mumbai–400 709 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaffn9159E Assessee By : Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, Ar Revenue By : Dr. Mahesh Akhade, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.11.2022

For Appellant: Ms. Nishita Mandalaywala, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(ii)Section 41(1)Section 68

suspicious dealers published by the Sales Tax Department of ₹13,04,108/- in the name of two different parties, same were added under Section 41(1) of the Act. f. An ad hoc disallowance of ₹5 lac various expenses was also made. 05. Accordingly, Assessment order under Section ... 1 crore was confirmed. The learned CIT (A) deleted the disallowance of interest expenditure of ₹25,13,558/- and also addition under Section 41(1) of the Act of ₹13,41,108/-. With respect to the bogus purchases, he directed the addition to be retained at 12.5% instead

M/S. Telesteels India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(3) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1832/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 5

payables in respect of aforesaid three parties ceased to exist and proceeded to treat the same as income in accordance with provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted that ISPAT Industries Ltd was merged with JSW Steel Ltd. The assessee company submitted that it had huge ... books of the assessee company and hence, it cannot be said that the liability had ceased to exist and accordingly, provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act cannot be brought into operation. 5 M/s. Telesteels India Pvt Ltd., 3.3. Similarly, in respect of amount payable to M/s. Lloyds Steel

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore vs. M/S. Spoorthi Constructions, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is partly allowed

ITA 507/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Oct 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sagar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar

Section 143(2)Section 41(1)

accounts without any change. He was also asked to explain why the unclaimed credit balances should not be brought to tax invoking Section 41(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted his explanation with regard to sundry creditors. The Assessing Authority on the ground that the assessee has not furnished ... make any cross- & CO No.3/Bang/2022 Page 6 of 9 verification as to remission or cessation of liability before invoking the provision of Section 41(1) of the Act. The revenue filed appeal against the appellate order before the ITAT. The ITAT also rejected the appeal of the revenue holding that

ACIT Corporate Circle-1(2), Chennai vs. Centwin Estates and Industries P Ltd, Chennai

In the result revenue’s appeal stand dismissed which makes assessee’s cross-objections academic in nature

ITA 29/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Respondent: Shri AR. V Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR

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

receivable from the appellant as on 31/3/2012, The said letter has been kept in appellant's records. The appellant cited the provisions of section 41(1) which provides for treating the cessation of liability as income. It was submitted that in the appellant's case there was no remission ... Pandey reported in [2015] 59 (Gajarat) held that the amount of old sundry creditors appearing in the Balance sheet cannot be added under section 41(1) unless and until it was found that there was remission/cessation of liability and that too during the relevant assessment year. In die instant case

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek

Section 153ASection 68

from income-tax for the assessment year 1965-66 on the ground that the amalgamated company was not liable to pay tax under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 , as the 21 I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021& others M/s Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. expenditure had been allowed ... Officer. The assessee, thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on the construction of section 41(1) of the Act. The Tribunal held that, after the amalgamation of the Indian Sugar Company with the assessee-company, the identity of the amalgamating company

Ravech Floritech Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(1) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 251/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S Ravechi Floritech Pvt. Ltd. 1St Floor, Mangaldas Estate, 397, D.B. Marg, Naaz Cinema Compound, Grant Road (E), Mumbai-400004. Pan: Aabcr0378Q ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-18(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Vimal Punmiya Respondent By : Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 06/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre-Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Nfac’] Dated 31.10.2021 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Sh. Chetan M. Kacha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 41(1)

learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming addition of Rs. 12136898/- made by the Assessing Officer by invoking provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. Provisions of the Act ought to have been properly construed and regard being had to facts of the case no such addition ... arrived at by the Assessing Officer that waiver of outstanding principal sum of Rs 12136898/- is cessation of liability and therefore provisions of section 41(1) are applicable in the present case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner

The ACIT, Central Circle -1(4), Chennai vs. Prince Gem & Jewellery Pvt.Ltd., Chennai

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

ITA 2214/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2214/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2008-09 V. The Asst. Commissioner – M/S.Prince Gem & Of Income Tax, Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-1(4), No.3, Nana Street, T. Nagar, Chennai. Chennai.

For Appellant: Mr.R.Meenakshi SundaramFor Respondent: Mr.Guru Bashyam, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 41(1)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ !ायपीठ, चे$ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी महावीर िसंह, माननीय उपा

DCIT-2(2)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 3033/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant (Account Member) & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () I.T.A. No. 3033/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) I.T.A. No. 2873/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) Dcit-2(2)(1), Vs. M/S State Bank Of India Mumbai (Successor To State Room No. 545, Bank Of Bikaner & 5Th Floor, Ayakar Jaipur) Bhavan Financial Reporting & Mumbai-400020 Taxation, 3Rd Floor, Corporate Centre, Madam Cama Road Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 14A

section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Bangalore Tribunal has held that section 41(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. Sections 41(1), 41(2), 41(3) and 41(4) of the Act operate in different spheres. Each of the sub-sections to section 41 ... Supreme Court has dealt with the specific section 41(2) of the Act for taxing balancing charge versus taxing the same under section 41(1) of the Act and has concluded that section 41(1) of the Act shall not be applicable. As the aspects of bad and doubtful debts

State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur), Mumbai vs. ACIT -Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 2873/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Section 14A

State Bank of India (Sucessor to Erstwhile State Bank of Indore), Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 2(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 277/MUM/2022[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Ble

Section 14ASection 244ASection 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS

ACIT Cent. Cir5(4), Mumbai vs. M/S. Infinite Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2241/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)(x)

account with Rs. 2.65 crores during the year under consideration. 6. The assessee claimed that the above said amount is not taxable under section 41(1) of the Act, since the above said amount was not claimed as expenditure in any of the years. It is pertinent to note that ... only as income during the year under consideration. Hence, the Assessing Officer assessed difference amount of Rs. 49,78,533/- under section 41(1) of the Act. 7. The Assessing Officer further took the view that the loan waiver amount of Rs.2.65 crores is in the nature of benefit accrued

Flo-Dyne Controls (India) Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per above directions

ITA 2112/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon'Bleflo-Dyne Controls (India) Private Limited V. Income Tax Officer – 15(1)(2) 2501, G Square Business Park Room No. 15B, Ground Floor Plot 25 & 26, Sector 30 Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Navi Mumbai - 400703 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aabcf2339M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 43B

Appeals). After considering the submissions of the assessee Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer relating to Section 41(1) of the Act, amount relating to misappropriation by the employee and amount claimed by the assessee as discount. CIT(A) gave relief

Indus Cityscapes, Chennai vs. DCIT Corporate Circle 2 (2), Chennai

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

ITA 1226/CHNY/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1226/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Indus Cityscapes Constructions Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., No. 5-C, Ega Trade Centre, Income Tax, 809, Poonamalle High Road, Kilpauk, Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai 600 010. Chennai. [Pan:Aabci2175A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri T. Banusekar, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.09.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai Dated 06.12.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. Facts Are, In Brief, That The Assessee Company Is Carrying Real Estate, Construction & Related Activities, Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2008-09 On 30.09.2008 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹.84,76,260/- & The Same Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The 2

For Appellant: Shri T. Banusekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

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

Limited at ₹.1.31 crores should not be treated as income in the hands of the assessee company within the meaning of section 41(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has not been able to explain the said transaction from their accounts and on verification ... details filed, it become very clear that assessee has not complied with the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and not offered the said income amount to tax. Accordingly, the said amount of ₹.1.31 crores was added back to the income of the assessee. 4. On appeal

M/S. Iconic Chandrakant Productions Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT-16(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2108/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi () & Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

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

Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unpaid creditors of Rs.2,09,60,832/- under section 41(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 by way of an exparte order. 6. The brief facts are that the assessee is in the business of production ... making an addition of Rs.2,09,60,832/- as trading liability which ceased to exist as per the provisions of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act by treating the same as cessation of liability. The Assessing Officer has added the said amount on the ground that the same

G.S. Entertainment, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cen Cir 24 & 26, Mumbai

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

ITA 4499/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldhanaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

1,04,70,535 to the income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer also rejected the contention of the assessee that section 41(1) of the Act is inapplicable in the present case. In appeal, learned CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 30/03/2013 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ... hearing, learned Authorised Representative („learned AR‟) submitted that the liability is still continuing and therefore, cannot be considered to be ceased under section 41(1) of the Act. On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative („learned DR‟) vehemently relied upon the orders passed by the lower authorities. M/s. G.S. Entertainment

ITO 19(3)(1), Mumbai vs. G.S. Entertainment, Mumbai

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

ITA 4362/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Stany SaldhanaFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Das, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

Smt. Nandini V. Kalgutkar, Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

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

ITA 802/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Sept 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2008-09 Smt. Nandini V. Kalgutkar, The Income Tax University Medical Officer, Centre, Ward 2 (1), Jyothi Circle, Mangalore. Mangalore. Vs. Pan: Akbpk2399B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, Ca : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-09-2022 Order Per Chandra Poojarithis Is An Appeal By Assessee Directed Against Order Of Ld.Cit(A) Dated 07/03/2013. 2. The Assessee Raised Following Grounds. “1. The Appellate Court I.E. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Mysore I.E., Has Erred In Confirming The Additions Of Income Made By The Assessing Officer. The Order Is Opposed To Law & Facts. The Hon'Ble Commissioner Has Passed The Order Mainly Presuming That The Appellant Was Not Interested In Pursuing The Appeal As He Has Failed To Respond To The Notice. The Fact Is That The Appellant Was Very Much Interested In Getting Relief As The Appellant Is Not Having Sufficient Income Even To Lead A Normal Life. But Unfortunately, The Authorized Representative Failed In Discharging His Responsibility For The Reasons Best Known To Him.

For Appellant: Shri S. Srinivas Kamath, CA

books of accounts of M/s. Meghamani Organics cannot lead to conclusion that assessee has derived any benefit in terms of section 41(1) of the IT Act. Further, the said balance is also shown as outstanding in the Balance Sheet of assessee as on 31.03.2008 and showing liability ... acknowledgement of debt and that the liability has neither ceased to exist nor there is a remission of liability in terms of section 41(1) of the IT Act as held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. reported

Arvind R Anand, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1)(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 530/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalarvind R. Anand, Flat No. 15/16, Kuber Chsl, Plot No. 141, Sector-17, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703. Pan: Ahxpa1480G ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-28(1)(2), 306, 3Rd Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vash, Navi Mumbai-400703. ..... Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Sh. Mehul Jain Date Of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 41(1)Section 68

each Ground of appeal. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Rs. 1,17,000/- (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition under section 41(1) of the Act. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Rs. 101,00,000/- (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition under section

Peninsula Properties, Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Circle 5(2), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 735/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am Dcit Central Circle–5(2) Peninsula Properties 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Vakil Industrial Estate, Valbahat Nariman Point, Road, Goregaon East, Vs. Churchgate Mumbai-400 063 Mumbai-400 020 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaifp 7134 L Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Praveen Shekhar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 02.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2022

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Praveen Shekhar, DR

Section 143Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)

submitted that since the assessee has not written back the liabilities in its books of accounts there is no applicability of provisions of Section 41 (1) of the act. The assessee also gave details of subsequent payment with respect to the certain parties. Thus it was submitted that since ... Properties; A.Y. 18–19 outstanding in its balance sheet and not credited the same to the profit and loss account the provisions of Section 41 (1) of the act does not apply. It was further stated that the limitation act also do not apply in income tax proceedings for taxing

M/S. Yelahanka - Ap Border Tollways Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 458/BANG/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Aug 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Yelahanka-Ap Border Tollways Pvt. Ltd., # 702, Provident The Income-Tax Welworth City, Officer, Yelahanka- Ward – 7[1][4], Doddaballapur Road, Bengaluru. Vs. Marashandra, Bengaluru – 562 163. Pan: Aaacy7243E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate : Shri Sankar Ganesh K, Jcit Revenue By Dr Itat Date Of Hearing : 08-08-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22-08-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal By The Assessee Has Been Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 28/03/2022 Passed By The Ld.Cit(A)-11, Bangalore Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 41Section 68

extent of Rs 1,34,25,045/- is upheld, although the relevant provision would be Section 68 of the Act and not Section 41(1) as done by the AO. In the case of Suresh Kumar T. Jain [2011] 128 ITD 74, Bangalore dated 08.01.2010 the Page