← All Phrases

“Section 41(4)”

Section References (mined)Section 41Section 41(4)110 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 41(4) is CIT v. Varas International (284 ITR 80), cited in 79 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 41(4)

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.

Haji Aziz & Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT
41 ITR 350 · 1961 · Supreme Court
69
citing judgments

Penalties paid for a breach of law or contravention of statutory provisions are not allowable deductions as business expenditure because they cannot be considered wholly and exclusively laid out for the purpose of the business. This principle is now enshrined in Explanation 1 to Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 579 · 2003 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For banks, bad debts written off from non-rural advances are not subject to the limitations of the provisos to sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii), as these provisos apply only to rural advances; section 36(1)(viia) also applies exclusively to rural advances. Additionally, depreciation on investments valued at market price on the balance sheet date is eligible for deduction.

CIT v. GP International Ltd.
325 ITR 25 · 2010 · High Court
45
citing judgments

An addition under Section 68 for cash credits or unexplained share capital cannot be sustained if the assessee substantiates identity and genuineness of transactions, even with partial confirmations from Section 133(6) enquiries. Further, Section 41(1) applies only when a trading liability ceases or is written off, not merely due to lack of creditor confirmation while the liability remains in the books.

79 Taxman 378/216 ITR 548 (Bom.) 4. CIT v. Macbrout Engineering (P.) Ltd.
52 Taxmann.com 219 · 2014 · High Court
43
citing judgments

If the Revenue accepts the Tribunal's decision for earlier years without challenge, it cannot assail the same decision in subsequent years, provided the facts are similar.

State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT
33 SOT 7 · 2009 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

When bad debts written off were not allowed as a deduction, any subsequent recovery from such bad debts cannot be brought to tax. This principle is upheld even if a deduction for provisions for bad and doubtful debts was allowed under section 36(1)(viia).

Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
314 ITR 314 · 2009 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to taxing a balancing charge under section 41(2) or to bad and doubtful debts specifically covered under section 41(4), as these provisions deal with distinct circumstances.

CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.
349 ITR 705 · 2012 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

Advances made by banks that become bad debts are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) if they meet the conditions specified in Section 36(2).

Judgments citing Section 41(4)

Small Industries Development Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2763/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Joshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 263

possession. Amount recovered out of these transactions were adjusted against the borrowers’ dues. Ld. PCIT notes that as per the provisions of section 41(4), if the amount subsequently recovered on any such debt or part is greater than the difference between the debt or part of debt ... Rs.79.68 crores during the year which remained to be examined by the ld. Assessing Officer in the light of the aforesaid provisions of section 41(4). Thus, he held that to this extent, the assessment made by the ld. Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as prejudicial

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Omax Autos Ltd, Gurgaon

ITA 3055/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 43(6)Section 45

assessee. This was duly recognized as 'other income' in the books of accounts for the current year and offered to tax under section 41(4) of the Act in the return of income for AY 2024-25. A copy of the Settlement Order dated 08.08.2023 passed by the Court along

Jewelex India Priavte Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5285/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarjewelex India Private V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Limited बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 401 Trade Centre, Bandra 14(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Kurla Complex, Bandra Maharishi Karve Marg, (East), Mumbai – 400 098, Mumbai – 400 020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcj4523H Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, (Sr. DR)
Section 135Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 43(6)(c)Section 80G

block of asset, the 'moneys payable' in respect of the property transferred has to be considered. He referred to Explanation below to section 41(4) of the Act, wherein the term 'money payable' has been defined. He submitted that the definition of the 'money payable' is inclusive definition and, therefore

Gbt India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, OSD, Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed as above

ITA 1764/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

date of closing the books where, in fact, such debts were recovered before filing of the ITR. In this backdrop and section 41(4) of the Act, the claim was disallowed as the said debts were recovered before filing of the ITR. Whereas in the instant case, neither the appellant

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Tiruchirapalli vs. The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Karur

ITA 1889/CHNY/2025[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

M/S. Karur Vysya Bank, Karur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Trichy

ITA 1502/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1502/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Karur Vysya Bank, Dcit, Erode Road, Vs. Circle-1, Karur – 639 002. Trichy. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:1889/Chny/2025 "नधा%रण वष% / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Dcit, Karur Vysya Bank, Circle-1, Vs. Erode Road, Trichy. Karur – 639 002. [Pan:Aaact-3373-J] (अपीलाथ'/Appellant) (()यथ'/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. & Ms. R. Lalitha, C.A. Department By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T. सुनवाई क* तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03.09.2025 घोषणा क* तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am :

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी एबी ट

Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Rajkot vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Rajkot

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 196/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.196/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) Shri Rajkot District Co-Operative Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Bank Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1), Jilla Bank Bhavan, Kasturba Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Race Course Ring Opp. Chaudhary High School, Road, Rajkot-360001 Rajkot-360001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Afups2094H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Smt. Pallavi, Ld. Cit(Dr) : 06/08/2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 04/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay)-2018-19, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Office [(In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 29.12.2023, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Vide Order Dated 30.03.2023 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee, Are As Follows:

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Pallavi, Ld. CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)

hold that the principle of taxing bad debts, claimed as deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) of the Act,on being recovered, as per section 41(4) of the Act, would apply to section 36(1)(viia) of the Act also on write back of provisions created, the fundamental reasoning remains

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

ITA 684/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

further submitted that the assessee has been claiming relief in earlier years on the ground that the recovery cannot be taxed under section 41(4) for the reason that the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 36(1)(vii). The ld. DR also submitted that in the year under ... consideration, the AO has invoked the provisions of section 41(1) and not section 41(4) to bring the recovery to tax. The ld. DR argued that the assessee at the time of making the provision or actual write off had claimed the benefit of deduction and therefore not bringing

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 661/BANG/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 2Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 41(1)

further submitted that the assessee has been claiming relief in earlier years on the ground that the recovery cannot be taxed under section 41(4) for the reason that the assessee had not claimed deduction under section 36(1)(vii). The ld. DR also submitted that in the year under ... consideration, the AO has invoked the provisions of section 41(1) and not section 41(4) to bring the recovery to tax. The ld. DR argued that the assessee at the time of making the provision or actual write off had claimed the benefit of deduction and therefore not bringing

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 882/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R
Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

taxed unless a deduction has been allowed under the 2nd stream in respect of bad debts written off. 17. The provisions of section 41(4) of the Act which provides for taxing the recovery effected out of the bad debts written off, therefore, clearly stipulates that the said recovery would

Dy..C.I.T., Bangalore vs. M/S State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 683/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

held that the recovery of bad debts in the case of the Appellant cannot be taxed either under Section 41(1) or Section 41(4) as the said bad debts were not claimed as a deduction under the Act. k) The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that ... viia) of the Act and not under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Bangalore Tribunal has held that section 41(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. Sections 41(1), 41(2), 41(3) and 41(4) of the Act operate in different spheres. Each

State Bank of Mysore, Bangalore vs. JCIT, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue Ground-3 is dismissed

ITA 660/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeestate Bank Of India Vs Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax, (Erstwhile State Bank Of Large Tax Payers Unit, Bangalore Mysore Prior To Merger) Local Head Office Compliance Department, 4Th Floor, 65, St. Marks Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent Deputy Commissioner Of Vs State Bank Of Mysore Income-Tax, Ltu, Circle-1, Head Office, Finance & Accounts Bangalore Department, Kg Road, Bangalore- 560 009 Pan: Aaccs0155P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad PatadeFor Respondent: Shri P.C. Chhotaray, Spl. Counsel
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41(1)Section 41(4)

held that the recovery of bad debts in the case of the Appellant cannot be taxed either under Section 41(1) or Section 41(4) as the said bad debts were not claimed as a deduction under the Act. k) The learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that ... viia) of the Act and not under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. Accordingly, the Bangalore Tribunal has held that section 41(4) of the Act cannot be invoked. Sections 41(1), 41(2), 41(3) and 41(4) of the Act operate in different spheres. Each

Alliance Nirmaan Limited, Bareilly vs. PCIT, Bareilly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 119/LKW/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow12 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 263

I.T.A. No.119/Lkw/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH 'A', LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH

ACIT Circle, 3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2119/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union बनाम Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

taxed unless a deduction has been allowed under the 2nd stream in respect of the bad debts written off. 17. The provisions of section 41(4) of the Act which provides for taxing the recovery effected out of the bad debts written off, therefore, clearly stipulates that the said recovery ... only claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under section 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad debts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT

ACIT, Circle -3(4), Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2118/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. बनाम Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

taxed unless a deduction has been allowed under the 2nd stream in respect of the bad debts written off. 17. The provisions of section 41(4) of the Act which provides for taxing the recovery effected out of the bad debts written off, therefore, clearly stipulates that the said recovery ... only claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under section 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad debts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle-(Ltu) 2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2038/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22)

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

taxed unless a deduction has been allowed under the 2nd stream in respect of the bad debts written off. 17. The provisions of section 41(4) of the Act which provides for taxing the recovery effected out of the bad debts written off, therefore, clearly stipulates that the said recovery ... only claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under section 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad debts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT

M/S Union Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-(Ltu)-2, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2037/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2037/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2038/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Union Bank Of India, Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी V/S. बनाम Dcit, Circle- (Ltu) 2, Mumbai Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2119/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2118/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2021-22) Acit, Circle-3(4), Mumbai Room No. 559, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Mumbai-400020 V/S. Union Bank Of India, बनाम | Finance & Accounts, Union Bank Bhavan, 239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Maharashtra- 400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacu0564G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Page 2

For Appellant: Shri C. NareshFor Respondent: Shri Vikas K. Suryawanshi
Section 144Section 14A

taxed unless a deduction has been allowed under the 2nd stream in respect of the bad debts written off. 17. The provisions of section 41(4) of the Act which provides for taxing the recovery effected out of the bad debts written off, therefore, clearly stipulates that the said recovery ... only claim deduction under section 36(1)(vii) of the Act, if there is any recovery, it can be charged to tax under section 41(4) of the Act. Therefore, the proposed addition of recovery of bad debts by the Assessing Officer is not proper and observation of Ld.CIT

Dombivali Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd, Dombivali vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6089/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Apr 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Ms. Tejaswi S. Pendse, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Sanyogita Nagpal, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 154Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 41

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT

Mayurply Industries Pvt Ltd., Hooghly, West Bengal vs. ACIT, Circle 3, Guwahati, Assam

In the result IT(SS)A Nos

ITA 224/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kaushik Roy, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 253Section 253(5)

years. At any rate, if recoveries have been made of debts written off as bad, then the same is to be taxed under section 41(4) of the Income-tax Act as laid down by their Lordship of Delhi High Court in the decisions quoted (supra). Bad debts could

M/S N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. ACIT., Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 580/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.580/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19) N.A.M.Expressway Ltd. Vs. Acit, Circle-5(1) Delhi Hyderabad [Pan : Aadcn3131D] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri Salil Kapoor, Ms Ananya Kapoor & Shri Tarun Chanana, Ar (Through Virtual Mode) रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri Shiva Sewak, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 30/10/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 28/01/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.03.2019 Of The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax [Ld.Pcit], Hyderabad-4 Pertaining To A.Y.2018-19 On The Following Grounds :

For Appellant: Shri Salil KapoorFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Sewak, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 43B

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant