← 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)

M/S Coal India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata

ITA 1407/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 1Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1406/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 623/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13
Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Coal India Limited, Kolkata

ITA 622/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

Coal India Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

ITA 467/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115JSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘C’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

ITO-1(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 1027/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Hon’Ble Shri Om Prakash Kantito- 1(3)(4) Vs. Vishwas Rayons Private Room No. 528, 5Th Floor, Limited Aayakarbhavan, M.K. Road, Room No. 19, 3Rd Floor Mumbai- 400020 6 M.K. Amin Marg, Bora Bazar Street, Fort, Mumbai- 400001 Pan/Gir No. Aadcv1302N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assesseeby Shri. Rasesh Shah Revenue By Ms. Kavitha Kaushik,Sr.Dr. Date Of Hearing 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue Challenging The Impugned Order 23.12.2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “1. I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee & Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,62,27,500/- Made By The Ao Under I The Provisions Of Section 68 Of The 2 Vishwas Rayons Private Limited

Section 133(6)Section 250Section 4Section 68

consider this receipt to be a business receipts even then it would not be taxable to tax under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, in as much as there was no allowance or deduction of this liability in the earlier years. We also do not find ... consider this receipt to be a business receipt even then it would not be taxable to tax under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, in as much as there was no allowance or deduction of this liability in the earlier years."" 16. Moreover, reliance has also been

Elite Packaging, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 17(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 7240/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Praveen B. Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi (SR DR)
Section 148Section 250Section 41(1)

evidences, the Ld. AO treated the difference in sundry creditors as ceased liability and made an addition of Rs.68,69,700/- under section 41(1) of the Act, thereby enhancing the total income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the said addition, the assessee preferred an appeal before ... revenue authorities. Despite the existence of a subsisting liability duly supported by documentary evidence, the Ld. AO proceeded to make an addition under section 41(1) of the 4 Elite Packaging Act by treating the same as a bogus sundry creditor, which, according to the Ld. AR, is wholly unwarranted

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Dev Rubber Factory Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 3478/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Dcit Vs Dev Rubber Factory Pvt. Ltd. Circle-7(1) 15A/13, Upper Ground Floor, Delhi East Patel Nagar, New Delhi-110008. Pan-Aafcm1581L Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Ankit Gupta, Adv. Date Of Hearing 12.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Revenue Against The Order Dated 30.05.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit (A), Delhi- 3/10359/2019-20 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 22.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Company Was Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Tubes For Automobile Tyres & E-Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.10.2017 Declaring Income At Inr 77,50,730/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued On 10.08.2018. Thereafter Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On Various Dates From Time To Time & In Response, The Assessee Has Submitted Its Replies. After Considering The Submissions Filed, Assessment Order Was Passed At An Income Of Inr 3,95,31,243/- Vide Order Dated 22.12.2019 U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Making Following Additions:- (I) Bogus Share Capital U/S 68 Inr 53,50,000/- (Ii) Addition On Account Of Rate & Taxes Inr 9,56,145/- (Iii) Addition Of Bogus Freight & Forwarding Expenses & Business Expenses Inr 59,25,588/- (Iv) Addition Of Vehicle Maintenance Expenses & Business Expenses Inr 81,89,820/-

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68

expenses” and “petrol expenses” and further, made addition of sundry creditors by holding the same as unexplained credits and further applied provision of section 41(1) of the Act. 6. It is observed that before ld. CIT(A), assessee filed all the relevant information to establish genuineness and creditworthiness

Dinesh Chand Kaushik, Aligarh vs. ITO, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 469/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 144Section 250Section 270ASection 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Tomar & Brothers, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer 2(2)(5) Etawah, Etawah

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

ITA 440/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15

Section 271(1)(c)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUNIL KUMAR

Efkon India Private Limited (Successor of I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited), Gurugram vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5331/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2014-15 Efkon India Private Limited Dcit, Circle-14(1)(2), (Successor Of I-Pay Clearing Aayakar Bhavan, Services Private Limited), Vs. Mumbai-400020. 1St Floor, Block B, Vatika Towers, Golf Course Road, Sector 54, Gurugram, Haryana-122002. Pan : Aaaci9818F (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Bhumika Majethiya For Revenue : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Ms. Bhumika MajethiyaFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

assessing the gross total income at Rs 1.11.15.520 as against the total loss of Rs 2.35,22,245, by making additions under Section 41(1) and disallowances of foreign exchange loss Adjustment made u/s 41(1) of Rs 11.80,72,895/- to total income 2 erred in confirming addition ... Learned AO under Section 41(1) of Rs 11,80,72 895 on account of outstanding sundry creditors pertaining to Efkon AG. 3 erred in law and on the facts of the case by making an adjustment of Rs 11,80 72,895 under Section 41(1

Mithi Software Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(3), Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2371/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mithi Software Technologies V The Income Tax Private Limited, S Officer, 101, Mayfair Court, Nachiket Ward-14(3), Pune. Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcm9352P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Agra Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 25.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 72

that borrowed funds were utilized for creation of capital structure. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) held that waiver is taxable under section 28(iv) or Section 41(1) of the Act. 2.2 Thus, even the ld.CIT(A) was not sure about the applicability of the section. 2.3 Aggrieved by the order ... taxed under the provisions of Section 28 (iv) of the IT Act. 14. Another important issue which arises is the applicability of the Section 41 (1) of the IT Act. The said provision is re-produced as under: "41. Profits chargeable to tax.- (1) Where an allowance or deduction

Dalavai Audikesavulu Srinivas L/H of Late Smt D A Sathyaprabha, Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1050/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

liability: (i) Because, the credit balance is not a trade creditor, but loan on capital account and therefore, outside the scope of section 41(1) of the Act. (ii) Because, the credit balance is not written off by the assessee and recognized as income in Profit 86 loss account ... credit balance is not a trade credit but loan on capital account and therefore it would not come under the scope of section 41(1) of the Act. The Ld.AR also submitted that the credit balance could not be treated as income u/s. 41(1) of the Act merely

Dalavai Audikesavulu Srinivas L/H of Late Smt D A Sathyaprabha, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1049/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT-DR
Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 69B

liability: (i) Because, the credit balance is not a trade creditor, but loan on capital account and therefore, outside the scope of section 41(1) of the Act. (ii) Because, the credit balance is not written off by the assessee and recognized as income in Profit 86 loss account ... credit balance is not a trade credit but loan on capital account and therefore it would not come under the scope of section 41(1) of the Act. The Ld.AR also submitted that the credit balance could not be treated as income u/s. 41(1) of the Act merely

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Kriti Nutrients Limited, Indore

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 246ASection 250Section 253

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M

Vidya Online Private Limited, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(5), Pune

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

ITA 804/PUN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.804/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri D.S. RahurkarFor Respondent: Smt.Sailee Dhole
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

incorrect and that the liability of making the payment to M/s. EBZ Online Private Limited is still active and therefore the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act on account of cessation of liability cannot be invoked in the facts of the present state of affairs. Therefore, the impugned ... regarding the addition u/s.41(1) of the Act at ₹1,92,80,966/- on account of loan from Shree Suvarna Sahakari Bank Ltd. Section 41(1) of the Act provides as under: “Profits chargeable to tax. 41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5031/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

deleting the addition of Rs.2,14,14,109/- made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained sundry creditors under section 41(1) of the Act. As per brief factual matrix, the ld. AO had noted that the proprietary concern of the assessee M/s Variety Book Depot was having sundry ... Rs.8,56,56,436/-, 25% thereof were deemed as unverifiable and the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs.2,14,14,109/- under section 41(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) concurred with the findings of the assessee that provisions of section 41(1) were non-maintainable

Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhandewalan Extn vs. Om Prakash Arora, Connaught Place

In the result, appeal of the Revenue vide ITA No

ITA 5029/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue Cross Objection No.42/Del/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.5031/Del/2024) [Assessment Year: 2015-16] Om Prakash Arora, Assistant Commissioner Of Income M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Tax, Central Circle-01, Bhawan The Variety Books Vs E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Depot. Connaught Place, New Delhi-110055 New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue [Assessment Year: 2016-17] Assistant Commissioner Of Om Prakash Arora, Income Tax, Central Circle-01, M-3, Flat No.103, Avg Bhawan E-2, Jhandewalan Extn. Vs The Variety Books Depot. New Delhi-110055 Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001 Pan-Accpa9774F Assessee Revenue

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

deleting the addition of Rs.2,14,14,109/- made by the ld. AO on account of unexplained sundry creditors under section 41(1) of the Act. As per brief factual matrix, the ld. AO had noted that the proprietary concern of the assessee M/s Variety Book Depot was having sundry ... Rs.8,56,56,436/-, 25% thereof were deemed as unverifiable and the AO proceeded to make addition of Rs.2,14,14,109/- under section 41(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) concurred with the findings of the assessee that provisions of section 41(1) were non-maintainable

Associated Projects Infra, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -2(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1482/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Ravish Sooda N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1482/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) M/S Associated Projects Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Infra, Hyderabad Income Tax, Central Pan:Aaofa6125E Circle 2(4), Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: C.As Ev Sri Krishna & Siva Charan राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

For Appellant: C.As EV Sri Krishna and Siva CharanFor Respondent: : Ms. Helen Ruby Jesindha, Sr
Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 41(1)

amount wrote off as bad debt in their books of account. 5 The CIT(A) erred in not examining the mandatory condition of Section 41(1), viz., claim of expenditure in the hands of appellant was satisfied or not. 6 The CIT(A) ought to have sought reconciliation between ... erred in holding that the appellant failed to show the liability is still subsisting in its books of account, for not invoking the Section 41(1), for the simple reason that there was no such liability arising out of claim of expenditure in the books of appellant in the first

DCIT Corporate Circle-1, Coimbatore vs. M/S Sri Lakshmi Electro Smelters Private Limited, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1969/CHNY/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Mr.K.Balasubramanian, C.AFor Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 51(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI