← 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. D.C. Polyester Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cent. Cir 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1944/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S D C Polyester Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Income S. V. Industrial Estate, Tax Cc-6(4), Mumbai, Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Room No. 1925, 19Th Floor, Mumbai - 400063 Vs. Air India Building, Pan: Aaacd3816C Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ravikant Pathak (Ar) Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 26/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 03/06/2022

For Appellant: Shri Ravikant Pathak (AR)For Respondent: Shri Surendra Kumar (CIT DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 41(1)

assessee was asked why the above outstanding should not be treated as ‘cessation of liability’ within the meaning of Section 41(1) of the Act. Assessee filed letter dated 27.12.2019, for the sake of brevity is reproduced below: “The List of creditors from ... there is no cessation of liability in respect of the creditors and same are still payable. The assessee therefore submit that provision of section 41(1) is not applicable in its case and no addition is called for.” 6. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the AO rejected

DCIT Cir 10(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Navin Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed while for the appeals of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 7038/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

4 Appeals Navin Fluorine Intl Ltd. Vs. The DCIT-7(1) 1 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN THE INCOME

Navin Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed while for the appeals of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6491/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

4 Appeals Navin Fluorine Intl Ltd. Vs. The DCIT-7(1) 1 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN THE INCOME

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Navine Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed while for the appeals of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5555/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

4 Appeals Navin Fluorine Intl Ltd. Vs. The DCIT-7(1) 1 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN THE INCOME

Navin Fluorine International Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee is partly allowed while for the appeals of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5301/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Ashok MehtaFor Respondent: S.N. Kabra
Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 41(1)

4 Appeals Navin Fluorine Intl Ltd. Vs. The DCIT-7(1) 1 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 IN THE INCOME

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 798/MUM/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)

This is fatal to the assesseement here. More ever, outstanding creditors which are trade creditors can be added only under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. No case has been made out that section 41(1) has been invoked and there is disallowances as per provisions ... section 41(1).Hence I do not find any merit in additions. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that the addition in this regard should be deleted. 17. We find the facts in the present assessement year are identical and similar to the earlier

Rajeshkumar Chamaria, Mumbai vs. ITO 24(3)(5), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 797/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh () & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale ()

Section 143(3)

This is fatal to the assesseement here. More ever, outstanding creditors which are trade creditors can be added only under the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. No case has been made out that section 41(1) has been invoked and there is disallowances as per provisions ... section 41(1).Hence I do not find any merit in additions. Hence, I set aside the orders of the authorities below and direct that the addition in this regard should be deleted. 17. We find the facts in the present assessement year are identical and similar to the earlier

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 24(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 845/MUM/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Blemetal Tubes & Rolling Mills V. Income Tax Officer – 24(2)(5) 1St Floor, Metal Tube & Rolling Mills Mumbai Marol Maroshi Road, Marol Village Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400059 Pan: Aaefm9353N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak Tralshawala & Shri D.B. Shah Department By : Shri T. Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralshawala &For Respondent: Shri T. Shankar
Section 143(1)Section 148

categorized in three parts: (1) working capital loan (2) term loan (3) overdraft account. The term loan may be outside the purview of Section 41(1) in accordance with decision of Bombay High Court in the case of Solid Containers Ltd., but the other two loans being directly connected with

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

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6908/MUM/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Apr 2022AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman () & Shri Amarjit Singh ()

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 salestax liability ... sales-tax deferred loan liability at the net 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

Smt. G. Vijaya, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 948/BANG/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sameer Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

also notice that the A.O. has not established that the liability has ceased to exist, which would warrant invoking of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, in our view, the A.O. was not justified in treating part of liabilities, i.e. Rs.6,26,74,760/-, as unproved

Smt. G. Vijaya, Bellary vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 is allowed and the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed

ITA 947/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri H. Siva Prasad Reddy, ITP, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sameer Kumar Singh, D.R
Section 132Section 153Section 153ASection 153C

also notice that the A.O. has not established that the liability has ceased to exist, which would warrant invoking of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, in our view, the A.O. was not justified in treating part of liabilities, i.e. Rs.6,26,74,760/-, as unproved

ITO 3(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Sanskruti Developers P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal is dismissed

ITA 7508/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: A Division Bench, There Was A Difference Of Opinion Between The Members Then Constituting The Division Bench. The Following Point Of Difference Was Thus Referred For The Opinion Of A.

Section 41(1)

ITA No.7508/Mum/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Page 1 of 2 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI ‘E’ BENCH, MUMBAI [Coram: Pramod

Accc 30, Mumbai vs. United Shippers Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and appeal filed by the AO is dismissed

ITA 3036/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir Income-Tax, Circle-30 R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacu0764C The Asst. Commissioner Of United Shippers Ltd. Income-Tax, Circle-30 United India Bldg, 2N D Floor, Sir R.No. 403, 4Th Floor, P.M. Road , Vs. Ayakar Bhavan, Fort, M.K. Marg, Mumbai-400 001 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ms. Vatsalaa Jha, CIT DR
Section 14ASection 92Section 92CSection 92C(3)

this issue. 9. On the facts and circumstances and in law, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in holding that provisions of section 41(1) of the I.T. Act are not applicable to unproved liabilities shown in the balance sheet on the ground that the assessee has offered these liabilities

Sri Lakshmi Narasimaha Bharatgas, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward 1(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 631/BANG/2021[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nagaraj, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing counsel for dept
Section 144Section 41(1)

ITA No.631/Bang/2021 Sri Lakshmi Narasimaha Bharatgas, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI B

Income Tax Officer, Ward- 4(1)(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S. Kaptronics Private Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1864/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Apr 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BengaluruFor Respondent: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 41(1)

during course of assessee’s business with DRL and that liability of assessee was a trading liability. AO thus held that provisions of section 41(1) were attracted in respect of amount of unsecured loan written off. There was no allowance or deduction claimed by the assessee in respect ... revenue field and same to be taxed. 9. The ld. AR submitted that there is no question of applicability of section 41(1) of the Act as the assessee has not claimed any deduction in any assessment year on this count. He submitted that it is a long term unsecured

Kdl Biotech Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 3(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3372/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur
Section 14ASection 254(2)

Rs.33,58,534/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO asked the assessee to explain as to why the provision of section 41(1) of the Act may not be invoked in respect of the above creditors and why the above liability may not be treated as ceased ... assessee. However it appears that the assessee could not give any satisfactory reply in this regard. Therefore the AO invoked the provisions of section 41(1) in respect of the above amount and added back the same in the hands of the assessee. 28. During the course of appellate proceedings

M/S. Metrochem Industriesltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 606/AHD/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

derived from export. Actually, there is no such income derived from export. There is only deemed income due to application of provisions of section 41(1). Sales tax allowed as deduction in earlier yeas which are received during this year as refund has been written back. Therefore, this cannot

M/S. Metrochem Industriesltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)-I, Range-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 1076/AHD/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

derived from export. Actually, there is no such income derived from export. There is only deemed income due to application of provisions of section 41(1). Sales tax allowed as deduction in earlier yeas which are received during this year as refund has been written back. Therefore, this cannot

The DCIT, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Metrochem Industries Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 87/AHD/2008[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

derived from export. Actually, there is no such income derived from export. There is only deemed income due to application of provisions of section 41(1). Sales tax allowed as deduction in earlier yeas which are received during this year as refund has been written back. Therefore, this cannot

M/S. Metrochem Industries Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT., Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeals of Revenue and appeals/cross objection of the assessee allowed/ dismissed as under:

ITA 2594/AHD/2008[1998-1999]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2022AY 1998-1999

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 1998-1999 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income 505-506, While House, Panchwati, Vs. Tax, Circle-4, Ahmedabad-380 006. 112, 1St Floor, Avjivan Trust Bldg. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-14. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 Metrochem Industries Ltd., The Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2), 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Vs. Ahmedabad. Panchvati Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2001-02 The Acit, Cir-4, Ahmedabad, Metrochem Industries Ltd., Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Vs. 505/506, Suryarath, Nr. Panchvati Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Assessment Year: 2003-04 M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Vs. Circle-4, Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380 006. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2003-04 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, M/S Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath, Nr. Navjivan Trust Bldg. Off. Ashram Panchwati, Ellisbridge, Road, Ahmedabad-380 006. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2004-05 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax Metrochem Industries Ltd., Circle-4, Vs. 505-506, Surya Rath Building, B/H, Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, White House, Panchwati, Ahmedabad. Ambawati, Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K Appellant Respondent Co No. 50/Ahd/2008 (Ita No. 87/Ahd/2008) Assessment Year: 2004-05 Metrochem Industries Ltd., Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax 505-506, Surya Rath Building, Vs. Circle-4, B/H, White House, Panchwati Navjeevan Building Ashram Road, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-06 Pan No. Aabcm 8019 K

Section 115JSection 244ASection 245Section 80H

derived from export. Actually, there is no such income derived from export. There is only deemed income due to application of provisions of section 41(1). Sales tax allowed as deduction in earlier yeas which are received during this year as refund has been written back. Therefore, this cannot