“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)

Alex Mathew (Prop M/S. Communique Outdoors), Mumbai vs. ITO 19(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2310/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Aug 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Learned Cit(A). Before Learned Cit(A), The Assessee Submitted That He Has Repaid The Creditors In The Subsequent Years & Hence The Addition U/S 41(1) Is Not Warranted. Since The Assessee Did Not 2 Alex Mathew (Prop. M/S. Communique Outdoors) Substantiate The Said Claim, The Learned Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition. Aggrieved, The Assessee Has Filed This Appeal Before The Tribunal.

Section 148Section 41(1)

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” Bench, Mumbai Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM) I.T.A. No. 2310/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2007-08) Vs. ITO

The Great Eastern Shipping Co., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. RG.5(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 197/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Percy j. Pardiwalla, Sr. Advocate with S/Sh. Jitendra Jain& Rashid PoonawalFor Respondent: Dr.Yogesh Kamat , CIT and Shri Sambit Mishra

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

supplementary provisions takes place. The Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have treated the very same income which is taxable under section 41(1) differently. The first being expenditure claimed in pre- tonnage tax scheme assessment years and the second being expenditure claimed in post tonnage tax scheme ... clearly provided that sections 28 to 43C would not over ride the computation of profits and gains under section 115VA. As section 41(1) falls within sections 28 to 43C, no separate addition under that section can be made. As section 41(1) seeks to bring to tax certain specified

Asst CIT Circle- 7 (3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Piramal Glass Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 8060/MUM/2019[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 8060/मुं/2019 ("न.व. 2003-04) Cit, Circle 7(3)(2), Room No.128A, 1St Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai - 400 020 ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Piramal Glass Ltd. (Earlier Known As Gujarat Glass Pvt. Ltd.) 1 Piramal Towerannexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. Pan: Aabcg-0093-R ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Minlind Chavan ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Ronak Doshi सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 05 /08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Mumbai [In Short ‘The Cit(A)] Dated 22/10/2019 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. Shri Ronak Doshi Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee Submitted At The Outset That Revenue In Appeal Has Raised Eight Effective Grounds. Majority Of The Grounds Raised In Appeal By Revenue Are Either Covered By The Order Of 2 Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case In Ita No.9645/Mum/2004 For Assessment Year 2001-02 Decided On 02/08/2016 Or By The Order Of Hon'Ble Bombay High Court In The Case Of Assessee Titled Pcit Vs. Piramal Glass Ltd. In Income Tax Appeal No.556 Of 2017 Decided On 11/06/2019. 3. Per Contra, Shri Minlind Chavan Representing The Department Vehemently Defending The Assessment Order Prayed For Reversing The Findings Of Cit(A) & Upholding The Additions Made In The Assessment Order. However, Ld. Departmental Representative Fairly Stated That Substantial Issues Raised In The Appeal Have Been Considered By The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case For Preceding Assessment Years.

For Appellant: Shri Minlind ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Ronak Doshi

Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ सी ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद

DCIT CC7 (2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Anik Industries Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2267/MUM/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jul 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaledcit, Cc-7(2) Vs. M/S Anik Industries Ltd Room No. 655, 3Rd Floor, 610, Tulsiani Aayakar Bhavan, Chamber, Nariman Point Mk Road, Mumbai – 400021. Mumbai – 400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm2696K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Smt Shailja Rai.Dr Respondent By : Shri.Bhupendra Shah.Ar Date Of Hearing 26.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Smt Shailja Rai.DRFor Respondent: Shri.Bhupendra Shah.AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

loan is in the nature of capital receipt and has been correctly credited to capital reserve. It has also been stated that section 41(1) of the Act will not apply as the section is applicable only in case of cessation of trading liabilities in respect of which deductions have ... discussed or distinguished. He accordingly held that the waiver of loan is taxable in the hands of assessee as per the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. M/s Anik Industires Ltd., Mumbai. 6.27. Without prejudice to the above the A0 further proceeded to hold that

Dy CIT -14(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Ayg Realty Ltd., Mumbai

In the result there is no cause of grievance made out by the assessee on which this tribunal can adjudicate hence, challenging the initiation itself is not allowed hence, found to be infructuous

ITA 476/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyaldy.Cit-14(1)(1), Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, Mumbai-400020. ..... Appellant Vs. M/S Ayg Realty Ltd., No. 1, Rajkamal, Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400098. Pan: Aaacc4637J ...... Respondent Choudhury & Choudhury India Ltd. (Now Known As Ayg Realty Pvt. Ltd.), No. 1, Rajkamal, Cst Road, Kalina, Mumbai-400098. Pan: Aaacc4637J ...... Appellant Vs. The Cit (Appeals)-22, Room No. 513, 5Th Floor, Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ..... Respondent Assessee By : Sh. Firoz Andhyarujina & Sh. Manek Andhyarujina Revenue By : Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28/07/2022

For Appellant: Sh. Firoz Andhyarujina &For Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. DR

Section 41(1)

pass order on general hypothesis" 2 -Whether the Ld.CIT(A) is right in law and facts in not invoking the applicability of section 41(1) for cessation of liability since the fact that the assessee has not been able to produce confirmation for sundry creditors outstanding" 3 The Appellant prays

Choudhury & Choudhury India Ltd. ( Now Known As Ayg Realty P. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeal)-22, Mumbai

In the result there is no cause of grievance made out by the assessee on which this tribunal can adjudicate hence, challenging the initiation itself is not allowed hence, found to be infructuous

ITA 1558/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Firoz Andhyarujina &For Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr. DR

Section 41(1)

M/S. Hassan Power Supply Company Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 500/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate/Standing Counsel for Dept

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

calling for various details. The Assessment Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) after making an addition of Rs.5,62,187 invoking section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay

M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 499/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Bhoolakshmi Estates Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. No.1, Grant Road, Cunningham Road, Income Tax, Bengaluru – 560 001. Central Circle – 2(1), Pan : Aaacb 8624N Bengaluru. Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT(OSD)(ITAT)

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Assessment Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) after Page 2 of 6 making an addition of Rs.20,38,570 invoking section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called ‘the Act’). Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay

M/S. Kanna Investments Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle -2(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 490/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Kanna Investments Ltd., Dcit, Vs. No.17, Sankey Road, Central Circle – 2(1), Bengaluru – 560 020. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaack 8373 K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. Joseph Varghese, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Susan Dolores George, CIT(OSD)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Assessment Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) after Page 2 of 6 making an addition of Rs.10,44,50,088/- invoking section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter called ‘the Act’). Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). There was a delay

Sri. R.C. Bhaskar, Shimoga vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimoga Range, Shimoga

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

ITA 583/BANG/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Venudhar Godesi, D.R

Section 234Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69

Rs.11,01,453/- in respect of outstanding balances of certain sundry creditors, which had been brought to tax invoking the provisions of section 41[1] of the Act under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. Shri R.C. Bhaskar, Shimoga Page 2 of 11 2. 1 ... this credit was not proved by assessee. Hence, it is ceased to be existed. Accordingly, he invoked the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act and treated it as income of assessee. Against this, assessee is in appeal before us. 2.2 We have heard the rival submissions and perused

ITO 15(3)(3), Mumbai vs. M/S Schoeller Technologies India Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer and Cross Objection of the assessee, are dismissed

ITA 2407/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S Schoeller Technologies The Income Tax Officer, India Pvt. Limited. Ward 15(3)(3) C-96, Ttc Industrial Area, Room No.452, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Turbhe, Navi Mumbai, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 705 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aahcs1326B

For Appellant: Shri Bharat Gandhi &For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 41(1)

fact and circumstances of the was correct in case, whether the Ld. CIT (A) law, in deleting the addition made under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs. 3,12,73,991/- not written off by the assessee company in respect of unpaid expenses like ... assessee company has already paid/claimed and therefore the assessee's case falls within the purview of "cessation of liabilities" for the purpose of section 41(1) of the Act? 2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Ld. CIT(A) was correct

M/S. Atria Convergence Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range- 1, Bangalore

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

ITA 2475/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jul 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Aliasger Rampurwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri T. Roumuan Paite, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 194JSection 40

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 ... that the Assessing Officer has failed to make any cross-verification as to remission or cessation of liability before invoking the provision of Section 41(1) of the Act. The revenue filed Page 10 of 26 appeal against the appellate order before the ITAT. The ITAT also rejected the appeal

United Shippers Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT 3 (3), Mumbai

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

ITA 7801/MUM/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jul 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhunited Shippers Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of 3Rd Floor, Prospect Income Tax-3(3) Chambers, D.N. Road, Air India Building, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0764C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Aakash Marthak &For Respondent: Ms. Vranda U. Matkari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)Section 41(1)Section 43B

ITA No.7801/Mum/2019 A.Y.2016-17 1 United Shippers Limited Vs. DCIT-3(3) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “F” BENCH, MUMBAI

M/S Teej Impex Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy CIT-Ward 8(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by assessee is allowed

ITA 643/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri M. Balaganeshआअसं. 643/मुं/2022("न.व. 2012-13) M/S. Teej Impex Pvt.Ltd. 4 Anna Bhuvan 3Rd Floor, 87C Devji Ratansi Marg, Dana Bunder, Mumbai 400 009 Pan: Aabct-9976-A ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ward 8(3)(1) Mumbai. Mumbai. Mumbai. ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Dr. P.Daniel ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Shri Brajendra Kumar सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 13/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ In Short ‘The Cit(A) Dated 30/03/2022 For The Assessment Year 2012-13,In Penalty Proceedings U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short ‘The Act’].

For Appellant: Dr. P.DanielFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar

Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण मुंबई पीठ “ ई ” "ी "वकास अव"थी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एम बालगणेश, लेखाकार सद

ITO 24 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Omprakash N. Pariani (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2960/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2013-14 Income Tax Officer-24(3)(1), Shri Omprakash N. Pariani (Huf) Mumbai. Vs. 1101, Samarth Prasad, Swami Samarth Nagar, Lokhandwala Circle, Andheri (East), Mumbai. Pan No.Aaah 06552R Appellant Respondent C.O. No.146/Mum/2019 (In 2960/Mum/2018) (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Paresh Shaparia, Ca Revenue By : Shri R A Dhyani (D.R.) Date Of Hearing : 16.06.2022. Date Of Pronouncement : 13.07.2022. O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, A.M. This Appeal Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Arising Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, CAFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani (D.R.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)Section 44A

name of Shri Durgadas Khabar. The Assessing Officer treated the same as cessation of liability under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is as under ... Various judicial pronouncements have been made to settle the applicability of the section 41(1) of the Act. The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT is case of ITO vs Shailesh D. Shah ITA 7012/M/10 held that where the assessee has just continued the entry in his books of accounts without

ACIT Cent. Cir 5(4), Mumbai vs. Shri Sunil B.Dalal, Mumbai

In the result, Appeal of The ld AO is dismissed

ITA 2239/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Shri Sunil B Dalal Central Circle 5(4) D/52, Tarabaug Estate, Room No.1927, 19Th Floor, Charni Road, Vs. Air India Bldg, Mumbai-400 004 Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 (Respondent) (Appellant) Pan No. Aaepd3658F Assessee By : Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, Ar Revenue By : Shri Hoshang B. Irani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 06.07.22 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.07.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sashi Tulsiyan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)Section 56(2)Section 56(2)(x)

loan by the lender. It was stated that the write off the amount of Rs. 42,50,000 cannot be charged under Section 41(1) of the Act. Assessee contested that it was not a ‘trading liability’ but an unsecured loan on which no deduction is claimed and hence ... chargeable to tax under Section 41(1) of the Act. It was also stated that Provisions of Section 28(iv) of the Act are also not applicable since the same is in the nature of cash or money. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(1)(2), Bangalore vs. M/S. Crane Software International Limited, Bangalore

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

ITA 214/BANG/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jul 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Sumer Singh Meena, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Sri.V.Srinivasan, Advocate

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 41Section 41(1)

assessee from HSBC and Yes Bank and the loans were utilized on the capital front. It was further submitted that for section 41(1) of the I.T.Act to have application, it should be a trading liability and claimed as a deduction from the income earned by the assessee

Sri Simhadri Ponnaluru Reddy, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 3(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1106/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Shankar, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Baseganni, D.R

Section 143Section 37Section 41(1)

partly allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Next ground is with regard to addition of Rs.45,61,240/- by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. 5.1 The grounds of appeal 4 to 7 relate to the action of the AO in treating an amount of Rs.45 ... discharged his onus of proving genuineness of the creditors. The assessee also submitted that the AO had wrongly invoked the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act. The assessee submitted that the amount payable to sundry creditors was paid by him to such creditors in the subsequent years

Nyka Steels P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Panvel Circle, Panvel, Panavel

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

ITA 1780/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri S. D. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Aditya Rai (Sr. AR)

Section 133(6)Section 41(1)

than the sundry creditors is M/s. S. P. Engineering Products, no 3 A.Y. 2014-15 Nyka Steel Pvt. Ltd. addition as per the Section 41(1) of the Act was warranted and he confirmed only Rs.16,93,608/- and deleted Rs.3,45,42,779/-. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action

Jenam Enterprises P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Asstt. CIT, Range-6(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 387/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale () Assessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. S.N. Kabra, DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)Section 41(1)

Income-tax (Appeals) have erred in treating the trade payables outstanding for several years as 'no longer payable' and taxed the same under section 41(1) as cessation of liability and accordingly disallowed a sum of Rs.18,70,540/- added to the total income declared by the Appellant. The Appellant ... balances of trade payables (sundry creditors) become unenforceable or is written-off by the assesse, the same cannot be brought to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. Further, learned assessing officer and Commissioner Appeals erred in appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 41(1