Section 41(1)(a) — 58 judgments | BharatTax

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

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

ITA 4872/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 156Section 234ASection 270ASection 37Section 41Section 41(1)(a)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4321/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4320/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4319/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4318/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 4090/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

reversed the\nprovisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the\nyear under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and\nholding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in\ndouble taxation.\n31\nITA No. 4043/Mum/2025 and others\nOverseas Infrastructure Alliance (India ... liability in its\naudited financial statements year after year and there is no evidence on\nrecord to demonstrate that the liability has ceased. Section 41(1)\napplied by the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be upheld to consider such\nliability as income for year under consideration without there being any\nremission

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4064/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

reversed the\nprovisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the\nyear under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and\nholding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in\ndouble taxation.\n8.10. Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions made u/s. 41 ... liability in its\naudited financial statements year after year and there is no evidence on\nrecord to demonstrate that the liability has ceased. Section 41(1)\napplied by the ld. Assessing Officer cannot be upheld to consider such\nliability as income for year under consideration without there being any\nremission

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4045/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4044/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 4043/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3998/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3995/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Kothari and Shri Ronak Vasavada, CAsFor Respondent: Shri R. A. Dhyani, CIT DR and Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR

Section 1

Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 8.6. Ground No. 2 is in respect of not invoking the provisions of Section 41(1) of the Act in respect of outstanding liabilities. Assessee had entered into an agreement with Mashkour Sugar Factory Company ("Mashkour") in the year ... reversed the provisions in AY 2024-25 which have been taxed u/s. 41(1), during the year under consideration. Therefore, invoking section 41(1)(a) and holding that the liability had ceased during the current year results in double taxation. Overseas Infrastructure Alliance (India

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 929/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

such loan is\nwaived off in the form of a discount, then it amounts to cessation of liability,\nwhich is taxable under section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO held that\nthe assessee, in its return of income, has correctly treated the discount on\nprepayment of Sales ... else the subsections and particularly\nsection 43B(1) would have been worded accordingly. Therefore Section 43B\nhas no application. Insofar as applicability of section 41(1)(a), there also the\napplicability is to be considered in the light of the liability. It is a loss,\nexpenditure or trading liability

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1041/MUM/2018[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2004-05

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT-DR

Section 10BSection 145ASection 14ASection 250Section 80Section 801BSection 80H

such loan is\nwaived off in the form of a discount, then it amounts to cessation of liability,\nwhich is taxable under section 41(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO held that\nthe assessee, in its return of income, has correctly treated the discount on\nprepayment of Sales ... else the subsections and particularly\nsection 43B(1) would have been worded accordingly. Therefore Section 43B\nhas no application. Insofar as applicability of section 41(1)(a), there also the\napplicability is to be considered in the light of the liability. It is a loss,\nexpenditure or trading liability

ITO WARD - 13(1), C.R. BUILDING vs. J L G DEVELOPERS LIMITED, JANPATH

ITA 4905/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Kandhari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)

counsel for the Revenue vehemently submitted that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in ignoring the applicability of Explanation 1 of Section 41(1)(a) of the Act as mentioned in the case of T V Sundram Aiyangar & Sons 222 ITR 344. The ld. DR relied upon the findings

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

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\noutstanding in the books of account and acknowledged in the balance\nsheet cannot be assessed under Section 41(1) of the Act.\n3.\nFacts of the case are that the ld.PCIT on perusal of the\nassessment records for the relevant year noticed that ... judice in F.Y.2017-\n18 and the decision of appellate authority came in F.Y. 2018-19 against\nthe assessee, hence as per provision of section 41(1) of the Act, such\nliability was required to be taxed in A.Y. 2018-19. Although the assessee\nhad set off the said ceased liability

RAGHIB ALI,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 44(2), KOLKATA

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

ITA 966/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jul 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) Where An Exparte Order Was Passed, Dismissing The Assessee’S Appeal.

Section 250Section 41(1)(a)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH”, KOLKATA SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A

DCIT 42 1 1 , MUMBAI vs. PRATAP UTTAM PUROHIT, MUMBAI

ITA 2042/MUM/2025[2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jun 2025

For Appellant: \nShri Bharat KumarFor Respondent: \nShri R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 41(1)(a)Section 68Section 69C

added.\nPage 13\nITA No. 2042/Mum/2025\nΑ.Υ. 2014-15\nPratap Uttam Purohit\n33.\nWe notice that the Assessing Officer had simply invoked section 41(1)\nbecause the amounts were outstanding for three years but there were\nno evidences brought by him that the liability has really ceased to exist ... nview, it is now a settled judicial view that the time-factor is not relevant for the\npurpose of section 41(1) of the Act. The revenue has to either demonstrate that\nthe liability has really ceased to exist or the assessee has written off the liability\nin its books

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI vs. R L TRADERS, DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3763/DEL/2024[2008]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Khettra Mohan Roym/S R.L. Traders Vs. Ito, Nfac, 2046, Katra Tobacco New Delhi Khari Baoli Delhi – 110006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafr5508C Appellant .. Respondent Income Tax Officer, Vs. R.L. Traders Ward 47(1), 2046, Katra Tobacco 1310, 13Th Floor, E-2 Khari Baoli Block, Civic Centre, Delhi - 110006 New Delhi – 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaafr5508C Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Manjani, Adv, &For Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)

typed; need to be ignored.” 10. The assessee is challenging the portion of disallowance sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) on account of Section 41(1). For this purpose he has submitted the paper book containing the following documents: “1. Written Submission dated 04.07.2019 filed before ... Karuna Industries.” 11. From the various evidence it is substantially proved that there has been no cessation of liability to apprehend to Section 41(1) of the creditors are genuine and the transactions are occurring with them on regular basis. Thus, the addition is unwarranted irrespective of these 3 creditors

R.L.TRADERS ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI

ITA 3634/DEL/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2025AY 2008-09

For Appellant: \nSh. K.R. Manjani, Adv, &For Respondent: \nMs. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 41(1)

need to be ignored.\"\n\n10.\nThe assessee is challenging the portion of disallowance sustained\nby the Ld. CIT(A) on account of Section 41(1). For this purpose he has\nsubmitted the paper book containing the following documents:\n\n\"1.\nWritten Submission dated 04.07.2019 filed before ... Karuna Industries.”\n\n11.\nFrom the various evidence it is substantially proved that there has\nbeen no cessation of liability to apprehend to Section 41(1) of the\ncreditors are genuine and the transactions are occurring with them on\nregular basis. Thus, the addition is unwarranted irrespective of these

“Section 41(1)(a)”

GETINGE MEDICAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 2(2)(1), MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE(INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -6 , MUMBAI

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMTIED ,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI

ACIT CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ACIT, CC-6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. OVERSEAS INFRASTRUCTURE ALLIANCE (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 1(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED, MUMBAI

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. DY.CIT-1(1)(2), MUMBAI

ITO WARD - 13(1), C.R. BUILDING vs. J L G DEVELOPERS LIMITED, JANPATH

SURBHIT IMPEX PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -8, MUMBAI

RAGHIB ALI,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 44(2), KOLKATA

DCIT 42 1 1 , MUMBAI vs. PRATAP UTTAM PUROHIT, MUMBAI

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 47(1), DELHI vs. R L TRADERS, DELHI

R.L.TRADERS ,DELHI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-17, NEW DELHI