← All Phrases

“Section 2(41)”

Section References (mined)Section 2Section 2(41)28 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 2(41) is CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275), cited in 204 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 2(41)

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.

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.

LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT
140 ITD 41 · 2013 · ITAT
107
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer or Transfer Pricing Officer can benchmark Advertisement, Marketing, and Promotion (AMP) expenses as an international transaction if it creates or is intended to create economic or commercial benefit for an associated enterprise. The 'bright line' method can be used for this purpose.

DCIT v. Bank of Bahrain & Kuwait
41 SOT 290 · 2010 · ITAT
81
citing judgments

Mark-to-Market (MTM) losses on forward contracts and forex derivatives are allowable as a revenue deduction under Section 37(1) where a binding obligation is created against the assessee. This is provided the assessee consistently follows the same accounting method for both profits and losses.

CIT v. Varas International
284 ITR 80 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

An appellate authority can admit additional legal grounds for the first time, even if not raised earlier, provided these grounds are purely legal, go to the root of the matter, and the relevant facts for their adjudication are already on record.

CIT v. Pfizer Ltd.
330 ITR 62 · 2011 · High Court
78
citing judgments

An insurance claim received on stock in trade constitutes business income and is not an independent source of income.

Judgments citing Section 2(41)

CIT vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 842 / 2011HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1198 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1183 / 2010HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Shankar Trading Co.P.Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1191 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

C.I.T vs. Shankar Trading Co. Pvt Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 731 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

The Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. Shankar Trading Co. P.Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 482 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shankar Trading Co. P. Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 361 / 2008HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons

Commissioner of Income Tax III vs. M/S Shankar Trading Co.P.Ltd

The appeals stand disposed of

ITA - 1207 / 2005HC Delhi09 Jul 2012
For Appellant: Mr Ajay Vohra and Ms Kavita JhaFor Respondent: Mr Sanjeev Sabharwal and Ms Suruchi Aggarwal
Section 201

tribunal that the maximum share holding in the assessee company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. The Tribunal however accepted the contention of the assessee that since the Assessing Officer had not recorded a specific finding that the expenditure ... order dated 25.02.2002 held that the maximum shareholding in the assessee-company was owned by the trustees and their relatives as defined in Section 2(41) of the Act. However, clause (v) of Section 40A (2)(b) of the Act brings only such companies, firms, HUFs or association of persons