← 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)

Surbhit Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -8, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2570/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Shivaram Sr. Adv.& Shri Shashi Bekkal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, (CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 263Section 41(1)

above the amount which is shown as outstanding in the books of account and acknowledged in the balance sheet cannot be assessed under Section 41(1) of the Act. 3. Facts of the case are that the ld.PCIT on perusal of the assessment records for the relevant year noticed that ... judice in F.Y.2017- 18 and the decision of appellate authority came in F.Y. 2018-19 against the assessee, hence as per provision of section 41(1) of the Act, such liability was required to be taxed in A.Y. 2018-19. Although the assessee had set off the said ceased liability

Vodafone Idea Ltd. (Earlier Knwon As Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, . Circle-26(2), New Delhi

In the result, all above said grounds are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8361/DEL/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S.Vodafone Idea Ltd Vs. Acit, (Earlier Known As Vodafone Circle-26(2), Mobile Services Ltd) New Delhi 10Th Floor, Birla Centurion, Century Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai, Maharastra (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacb2100P

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S. K,. Jadav, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92C

expenditure or trading liability Vodafone Idea Ltd and reversal thereof could not be brought to tax in the hands of the assessee under section 41(1) of the Act. 8.2 The ld AO rejected the claim of the Assessee alleging that Assessee has not established that the liability was capital ... taxed u/s 41(1) of the Act since depreciation is neither a loss nor expenditure nor a trading liability, as referred in Section 41(1) of the Act. He further held with regard to addition u/s 28(iv) by placing reliance on Binjrajka Steel Tubes Limited (supra) held that

Hewlett Packard Financial Services (India) P. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Asst CIT Cir 2(1)(2), Bangaluru

Accordingly, the ground is dismissed as not pressed

ITA 915/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Beena Pillai, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 41

drew our attention to the submissions made before the CIT(A). (page 386 of PB). The ld. AR argued that the provisions of section 41(1) would get resolved only on satisfaction of the condition that there is a liability that ceased to exist and that the liability ... trading liability and no deduction has been claimed earlier by the assessee. Accordingly, it is contended that the provisions of section 41(1) are not applicable. In this regard we notice that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Shri Vardhman Overseas Ltd. has considered the issue

Pramila Agarwal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 531/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Oct 2025AY 2011-12
For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Court in the case of ‘Saurashtra Packaging (P.) Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1993] 204 ITR 443 (GUJ.)' Section 254, read with section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal – Order of – Assessment year 1984-85 – Assessee-company took over running business of a firm ... held that said refund was assessable as income of assessee On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that since deduction was allowed to partnership firm, section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee Tribunal observed that deed of dissolution was not on record and that

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara vs. Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue fails on the sole

ITA 1251/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Mukund Rao, AR
Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41(1)

with RBI of Rs. 37,57,82,211/- (iii) Recovery of bad debts amounting to Rs.3,27,39,639/- was added back under section 41(1) of the Act. (iv) Disallowance of Rs.31,46,177/- on account of late remittance of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund was also made under

Jayaram Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 711/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹22,92,766/– on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act. 38. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee had been showing an outstanding liability amounting ... said party. Thus, the AO was of the view that the liability had ceased to exist. He brought the same to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. 39. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. 40. Being aggrieved by the order of learned

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 710/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 709/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 708/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 706/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of ₹22,92,766/– on account of cessation of liability under section 41(1) of the Act. 38. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings found that the assessee had been showing an outstanding liability amounting ... said party. Thus, the AO was of the view that the liability had ceased to exist. He brought the same to tax under section 41(1) of the Act. 39. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the order of the AO. 40. Being aggrieved by the order of learned

Jayarama Reddy Boopesh Reddy, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Cirlce-2(4), Bengaluru

ITA 705/BANG/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Appellant: Shri Bharat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHODHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED

Dinesh Papoo Melwani, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1219/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri K.R Pradeep, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 68

appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 10. The second issue raised by the assessee relates to the addition under section 41(1) of the Act of ₹2,71,701.00 only. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had shown a sundry creditor in the name ... Chowlur Jewellers. No confirmation was filed. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held that the liability no longer existed and made the addition under section 41(1) of the Act. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition. 11. Before us, the Authorised Representative submitted that confirmation could

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-4, Lucknow vs. Shri Pawan Kumar Tiwari, Lucknow

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

ITA 88/LKW/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshradcit, Range-4. V. Shri Pawan Kumar Aaykar Bhawan, 5, Ashok Marg, Tiwari Lucknow-226001. Prop. Suneet Enterprises 31, Para Road, Rajajipuram, Lucknow. Pan:Acdpt1500B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri Puneet Kumar, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Puneet Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

ACIT, Circle-24(1), Mumbai vs. Mahavir Associates, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while CO of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1134/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarassistant Commissioner Of V/S. Mahavir Associates Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), बनाम Gala No. 1, Apollo Chamber, 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Mogra Pada Road, Andheri Chambers, Mumbai – 400012, East, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी प्रत्याक्षेपसं/C.O. No.83/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 1134/Mum/2025) (A.Y. 2015-16) Mahavir Associates V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Gala No. 1, Apollo बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 24(1), Chamber, Mogra Pada 601, 6Th Floor, Piramal Road, Andheri East, Chambers, Mumbai – 400 012, Mumbai – 400 069, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfm0307L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Assessee By : Shri Narendra Patel, Ar Revenue By: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07.10.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Prabhash Shankar [A.M.] :- The Instant Appeals Preferred By The Revenue & Cross Objection Of The Assessee Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Learned

For Appellant: Shri Narendra Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri (Sr. AR)
Section 133ASection 144Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Smt. Suman Choudhary, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CA &For Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 68

Court in the case of ‘Saurashtra Packaging (P.) Ltd v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1993] 204 ITR 443 (GUJ.)’ Section 254, read with section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appellate Tribunal – Order of – Assessment year 1984-85 – Assessee-company took over running business of a firm ... held that said refund was assessable as income of assessee – On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that since deduction was allowed to partnership firm, section 41(1) was not applicable and amount was not assessable as income of assessee – Tribunal observed that deed of dissolution was not on record and that

M/S. Kolte-Patil Integrated Townships Limited, Pune vs. PCIT - 4, Pune

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

ITA 1030/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 3Section 41Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA

Limrass Construction Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5002/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJ

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Sheth Realtors, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of 1.T. Act. 4. Ground No. 4 - Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- u/s 41(1 ... Employee's contribution to Provident Fund & ESIC of Rs. 13,761 may be deleted. d. Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be deleted, e. Disallowance of Donation of Rs. 66,000/- may be deleted. f. any other relief your

Sheth Realtors, Mumbai vs. ITO-7(1) (Erstwhile ITO-23(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2712/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Sheth Realtors Income-Tax Officer-7(1) Vasant Oasis, Site Office, [Erstwhile Ito-23(3)(3)] Upper Basement, Mumbai Cts No 345A 1 To 3, Vs. 345A 5 To 6, Makwana Road, Marol, Andheri East., Mumbai – 400059 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Sheth Realtors Income-Tax, Central Circle 12Th Floor, Hallmark Business 7(1), Vs. Plaza, Sant Dyaneshwar Marg Mumbai Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051 [Pan: Aavfa3975F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate & Shri Rahul Hakani, Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee & Revenue Are Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (A) 49, Mumbai, Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2024- Assessment Year 2017-18 25/1075205796(1), Dated 28.03.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Income-Tax Officer, Ward-23(3)(3), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 30.12.2019 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee & Revenue Are Reproduced As Under: I. Ita No. 2712/Mum/2025 [Assessee]

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram, Sr. Advocate and Shri Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)

Section 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of 1.T. Act. 4. Ground No. 4 - Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:- 4.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- u/s 41(1 ... Employee's contribution to Provident Fund & ESIC of Rs. 13,761 may be deleted. d. Addition of Rs. 10,31,540/- under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be deleted, e. Disallowance of Donation of Rs. 66,000/- may be deleted. f. any other relief your

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Bengaluru vs. M/S Trishul Developers, Bengaluru

ITA 767/BANG/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 292Section 69C

Indian Sugar Company with the appellant Company, the Indian Sugar Company continued to have its entity and was alive for the purposes of Section 41(1) of the Act. The amalgamation of the two companies was effected under the order of the High Court in proceedings under Section 391 read