← 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)

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

ITA 766/BANG/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2025AY 2009-10

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

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ginni Filaments Ltd., Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 64/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra26 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 41(1)

liability without appreciating factual and legal position. 2.2 That there being no case of any remission or cessation of liability in terms of section 41(1) and the outstanding balance of Sundry creditors being of regular nature, the invocation of section 41(1) and consequential addition is highly arbitrary

Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-2, Kanpur vs. Shri.Mohammad Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 144/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Mohd. Asfand Akhtar, Kanpur vs. Deputi Commissioner of Income Tax CC-2, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 139/LKW/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Cc-2 V. Shri Mohammad Asfand Laxmi Niwas, 10/503, Akhtar Allenganj, Kanpur-208001. Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Mohammad Asfand Akhtar V. Dcit, Central Circle-Ii Plot No.02, Block-B, Scheme-39, 10/503, Allenganj, Kanpur- Ram Rai Ki Sarai, Jajmau, 208001. Kanpur Nagar-208010. Tan/Pan: Aempa0823R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Jaiswal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 41Section 41(1)Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “A”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH

Hapag Lloyd India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai - 5, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 3805/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiahapag Lloyd India Private Limited Pr. Cit Room No. 515, 5Th Floor, 501, Satellite Gazebo, B-Wing, 5Th Floor, Guru Hargovindaji Marg, Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Vs. Andheri (E), Chakala Mide S.O., Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 093 Pan/Gir No. Aabch 7319 B (Appellant) : (Respondent) : Shri Paras Savla, Adv. A/W Appellant By Shri Pratik Poddar, Adv. & Shri Shreyas Sardesai Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Assailing The Order Dated 11.03.2025 Passed By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Mumbai U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2020-21. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: Validity Of Revision Proceedings Under Section 263 Of The Act 1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Leamed Pcit Erred In Passing An Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Assessment Order Dated 5 September 2022 Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer ('Ao') Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act Was Neither Erroneous Nor Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue & Thus, The Order Under Section 263 Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad-In-Law.

For Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)Section 41(1)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT

Kansara Popatlal Tibhovandas Metal Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in the manner indicated above

ITA 1405/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234ASection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 68

Priya Roadlines was also treated as having been ceased. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made a total addition of Rs. 25,20,513/- under section 41(1) of the Act to the income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer observed that since the assessee failed to produce basic and complete ... Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was computed as Rs. 5,13,08,057/- after making additions under sections 41(1) and 68 of the Act. 4. In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), despite issuance of as many as eight notices over a period of 6 years from

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Haryana

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER and SHRIS.RIFAUR

Shri Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, Bhachau-Kutch vs. The ACIT, Gandhidham Circle, Gandhidham-Kutch

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

ITA 10/RJT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 10/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Subhas Hansaraj Nandu, V Acit, Gandhidham Opp. Shambhu Maharaj Circle, S Bunglow, Kutch . Bhachau, Gujarat – 370140 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afrpn0720J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 37(1)Section 41(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Gurmeet Singh Sethi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 45(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands Allowed

ITA 334/DEL/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay, Accoutant Member Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Gurmeet Singh Sethi, Vs. Ito, Ward 7(4), A-37, Rajouri Garden, New Delhi New Delhi – 110 027 (Pan: Aaaps4868G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sh. Anil Chopra, Ca Respondent By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr. Date Of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.09.2025 Order

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘F’’ : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI KRINWANT

Smt. Sudha Loyalka, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 399/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2012-13] Smt. Sudha Loyalka, Vs Ito, Prop.Tirupati Industries, 2/1, Ward-35(2), Block-41, Singh Sabha Road, New Delhi Shakti Nagar, Delhi-110007. Pan-Aabpl6055D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr.Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Aggarwal, Adv. & Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv. Respondent By Shri Narpat Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 01.12.2016 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A)-12, New Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. 26/15-16 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2015 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Her Return Of Income On 27.09.2012, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 3,52,180/-. The Case Of Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny For The Reason “Large Amount Of Sundry Creditors”. Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Trading Of Fabrics & Readymade Garments Under The Name & Style As M/S. Tirupati Industries. The Assessee Has Shown Total Sundry Creditors Of Inr 6,77,21,342/- Which Includes Inr 3,48,88,095/- Under The Title “Retail Creditors Control Account”. In Order To Examine The Genuineness Of These Creditors, Ao Issued Notice U/S 133(6) Of The Act To 27 Parties Out Of Which Notices Issued To 20 Parities Amounting To Inr 2,78,20,495/- Were Returned Back For The Reason “Wrong Address/Incomplete Address/Non-Existed” Etc. The Ao Thereafter, Discussed Each Of The Parties To Whom Notices Were Sent & Reached To The Conclusion That These Parties Are Non-Existent & Made The Addition Of Inr 3,50,94,758/- As Bogus Creditors.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 69C

ITA No.5143/Del/2024 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI

Gauge 16 Kitchen Equipments, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 5(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1680/BANG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Balram R Rao, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ITANo.1680/Bang/2024 Gauge 16 Kitchen Equipments, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE

DCIT, Circle - 19(1), Delhi vs. Renew Wind Energy (Karnataka) Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, appeal of Revenue in ITA No

ITA 4315/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 41(1)

given a finding of fact that the amount of Rs 25,18,26,746/-, as disclosed under Form 3CD as taxable under section 41(1) of the Act, has already been offered to tax in the ITR. The CIT(A) found for a fact that: Page ... page 36 of the Paper Book which describes an amount of Rs 24,99,83,296/- offered as profit chargeable to tax under section 41(1) of the Act and its computation. We are therefore, of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has justifiably deleted the addition

Arusuvai Food Processors Pvt. Ltd., Salem vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.D. Anand, Advocate
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 264Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 270A(9)(a)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 271Section 41(1)

unsettled for more than 5 years. Based on the prolonged non-settlement of trade advances received in FY 2016–17, the AO invoked Section 41(1) and treated the amount of ₹1,70,16,220/- as deemed profits chargeable to tax under the head “Profits and Gains of Business

Mangilal, Mysore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Mysore

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

ITA 269/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Mangilal, Vs. Ito, Pro: Chagan Agencies, Ward – 2(4), #138, 3Rd Floor, A Block, Apmc Yard, Mysore. Bandipalya, Mysore. Pan : Ackpm 3943 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue
Section 40Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K

Global Tradex Ltd. (Previously Known As Namco Steel Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6536/MUM/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Tulsian and Ms. Ruchira Singhal, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 28Section 41(1)

while dismissing the appeal erred in upholding the action of the AO of making addition of Rs. 46,50,05,181/- under section 41(1). That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the addition made is wrong and is prayed to be deleted

ITO, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad vs. Ideal Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad

ITA 4257/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraassessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit, Vs Ideal Institute Of Technology Society, 46, 1St Floor, Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad. Navyug Market, Ghaziabad. Pan: Aaati3380F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohit Tiwari, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 24.03.2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. First Appellate Authority Or ‘The Ld. Faa’, For Short) In Appeal No.91/2013-14/Gzb Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 22.03.2013 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Jcit, Range-2, Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. Heard & Perused The Record. The Assessee Is A Society Registered Under The Societies Registration Act & Is Running Engineering, Mba & Mca Colleges. The Return Was Filed Declaring Nil Income. However, The Ld. Ao Completed The Assessment At Rs.10,93,79,835/- By Making Four Principal Additions:-

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Tiwari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Daya Inder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: C : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH

M/S. Rahman Properties Limited, Guwahati vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeis allowed

ITA 241/GTY/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Aug 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Joint Commissioner Of Income M/S Rahman Properties Limited Tax, Range-2, Guwahati C/O Hotel Dynasty, S.S. Road, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Lakhtokia, Guwahati-781001, Vs. Christian Basti, G.S. Road, Assam Guwahati-781005, Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaccr0023P Assessee By : Shri Akhilesh Shrivastava, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kausik Ray, Dr Date Of Hearing: 09.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Shrivastava, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kausik Ray, DR
Section 143(1)Section 41Section 41(1)

dismissing the appeal of the assessee on this issue despite the submissions of the assessee that provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act were not applicable in the instant case as the same is applicable along only when the liabilities/ expenses which were written back were rooted ... written back were incurred in respect of capital assets and were capitalized. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act are not applicable at all while writing back the liabilities. Accordingly, we set aside the order

M/S. Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2610/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Aug 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm M/S Philips India Limited Rajarhat 4A, 5Th Floor, Ecospace The Dcit Business Park, Premises A4 Ii, Circle 11(1), Aayakar Bhavan, New Town, Chakpachuria, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Vs. Kolkata-700156 Kolkata-700069, West Bengal West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcp9487A Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved, Ar Revenue By : Shri Praveen Kishore, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Kishore, CIT DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM M/s

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

The appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2912/CHNY/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

ory sicia efter, ‘wv arais, tag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘f’ BENCH, CHENNAI Hu A aol, ats wae

Sundaram Sankar Anand, Karur vs. Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore

In the result the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as below:

ITA 2911/CHNY/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 2850,2851,2852 & 2853/Chny/2024, 2910, 2911 & 2912/Chny/2024 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sundaram Sankar Anand, The Assistant Commissioner Of No.63-B-7, Mayanur, Vs Income Tax, M Kaspa Sandai Peatai, . Central Circle – 2, Coimbatore. Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 102 [Pan:Bvips-1149-E] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. V. Alagappa, C.A. प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. M.Murali, Cit (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25.06.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am:

For Appellant: Shri. V. Alagappa, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. M.Murali, CIT (Virtual)
Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, ‘ए’ न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिर्क