← All Phrases

“Section 41(2)”

Section References (mined)Section 41Section 41(2)74 judgments

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

Leading authorities on Section 41(2)

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 41(2)

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addlcit, Special Range-4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6506/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

case in Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 5671/Del/2018 wherein held as under:- “36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F 1.04.1998 to provide for a levy of balancing charge in respect of certain depreciable assets, namely, building, machinery, plant ... generation or generation and distribution of power which was, or has been used for the purpose of business. 37. It is clear that section 41(2) of the Act applies only if the assets are owned by the power generating undertaking and since the assessee is not a power generating

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 6296/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

case in Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 5671/Del/2018 wherein held as under:- “36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F 1.04.1998 to provide for a levy of balancing charge in respect of certain depreciable assets, namely, building, machinery, plant ... generation or generation and distribution of power which was, or has been used for the purpose of business. 37. It is clear that section 41(2) of the Act applies only if the assets are owned by the power generating undertaking and since the assessee is not a power generating

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5925/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

case in Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 5671/Del/2018 wherein held as under:- “36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F 1.04.1998 to provide for a levy of balancing charge in respect of certain depreciable assets, namely, building, machinery, plant ... generation or generation and distribution of power which was, or has been used for the purpose of business. 37. It is clear that section 41(2) of the Act applies only if the assets are owned by the power generating undertaking and since the assessee is not a power generating

Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, Appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 5903/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

case in Assessment Year 2010-11 in ITA No. 5671/Del/2018 wherein held as under:- “36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F 1.04.1998 to provide for a levy of balancing charge in respect of certain depreciable assets, namely, building, machinery, plant ... generation or generation and distribution of power which was, or has been used for the purpose of business. 37. It is clear that section 41(2) of the Act applies only if the assets are owned by the power generating undertaking and since the assessee is not a power generating

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur vs. M/S Chadda Transport, Chandrapur

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 363/NAG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur27 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Chadda Transport, Commissioner Of V Kosara Road, Padoli, Income Tax, S Chandrapur, Chandrapur Circle, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.01/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.363/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Chadda Transport, The Assistant Kosara Road, Padoli, V Commissioner Of Income Chandrapur, S Tax, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Mrathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 50Section 68

entry passed in the books to avoid the payment of tax and to escape the provisions of section 50 and the provisions of section 41(2), by showing the sale consideration on sale of trucks at Rs. 5,50,85,000/- instead of Rs. 8,83,25,488/-, being ... payment of tax and to escape the ITA No.363/NAG/2019 & C.O.No.01/NAG/2020 M/s.Chadda Transport (Cross Appeal) provisions of section 50 and the provisions of section 41(2) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, the entire loan liability of Rs.8,83,25,488/- transferred in the name of the purchaser

DCIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2446/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cases, held that where the entire business is sold as a going concern with all the assets and liabilities, the provision of section 41(2) cannot be invoked unless and until the information with regard to the actual cost, the W.D.V. and the sale consideration for each asset sold

Procter & Gamble Hygine & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1735/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cases, held that where the entire business is sold as a going concern with all the assets and liabilities, the provision of section 41(2) cannot be invoked unless and until the information with regard to the actual cost, the W.D.V. and the sale consideration for each asset sold

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hyginene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3566/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cases, held that where the entire business is sold as a going concern with all the assets and liabilities, the provision of section 41(2) cannot be invoked unless and until the information with regard to the actual cost, the W.D.V. and the sale consideration for each asset sold

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT Cir 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3518/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cases, held that where the entire business is sold as a going concern with all the assets and liabilities, the provision of section 41(2) cannot be invoked unless and until the information with regard to the actual cost, the W.D.V. and the sale consideration for each asset sold

Procter & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd., Mumbai vs. Addl.C.I.T. Cir. 8(2), Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2277/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cases, held that where the entire business is sold as a going concern with all the assets and liabilities, the provision of section 41(2) cannot be invoked unless and until the information with regard to the actual cost, the W.D.V. and the sale consideration for each asset sold

Addl CIT RG 8(2), Mumbai vs. Proctor & Gamble Hygiene & Health Care Ltd, Mumbai

In the result the appeals of the revenue are dismissed and the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2167/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2023AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhita No.3518 & 2277/Mum/2012 Procter & Gamble Hygiene Vs. Additional Cit Circle 8(2) & Healthcare Limited Mumbai -400020 P & G Plaza Cardinal Gracias Road, Chakkala, Andheri (East) Mumbai – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aaacp6332M Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Yogesh Thar, Ms. SukanyaFor Respondent: Tushar Mohite
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

cases, held that where the entire business is sold as a going concern with all the assets and liabilities, the provision of section 41(2) cannot be invoked unless and until the information with regard to the actual cost, the W.D.V. and the sale consideration for each asset sold

ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi vs. M/S. Northern India Alcoruy Systems, Vapi

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

ITA 232/SRT/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.232/Srt/2020 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Physical Hearing) The Acit, Vs. M/S Northern India Alcobru Systems, Vapi Circle, Plot No.730, 40 Shed Area, Gidc, Vapi. Vapi – 396195. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aahfn0481F (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri Airiju Jaikaran, Cit(Dr) Appellant By Shri Suresh K. Kabra, Ca Respondent By Date Of Hearing 16/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 06/11/2023

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Company Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 975/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, CIT- DR
Section 32(1)(i)Section 41(1)Section 41(2)

5671/DEL/2018 has considered a similar dispute and held as under: “36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F 1.04.1998 to provide for a levy of balancing charge in respect of certain depreciable assets, namely, building, machinery, plant or furniture which ... generation or generation and distribution of power which was, or has been used for the purpose of business. 37. It is clear that section 41(2) of the Act applies only if the assets are owned by the power generating undertaking and since the assessee is not a power generating

ACIT, Circle-10(1), New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages P.Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, CIT- DR
Section 32(1)(i)Section 41(1)Section 41(2)

5671/DEL/2018 has considered a similar dispute and held as under: “36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F 1.04.1998 to provide for a levy of balancing charge in respect of certain depreciable assets, namely, building, machinery, plant or furniture which ... generation or generation and distribution of power which was, or has been used for the purpose of business. 37. It is clear that section 41(2) of the Act applies only if the assets are owned by the power generating undertaking and since the assessee is not a power generating

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Raipur vs. Hi-Tech Abrasive Private Limited, Raipur

In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 142/RPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Jul 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.142/Rpr/2018 (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur Vs Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M & Cross Objection No.14/Rpr/2018 (Arising Out Of Ita No.142/Rpr/2018) (Assessment Year: 2014-2015) Hi-Tech Abrasive Pvt. Ltd. Vs Acit, Circle-2(1), Raipur 740, Sector-B, Urla Industrial Area, Raipur Pan No. :Aaach 5950 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Smt. Ila M. Parmar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/07/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19/07/2023

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, CIT-DR
Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 37Section 50

realizable value of these fixed assets. Therefore, such loss was recorded by the assessee in its books of accounts but according to Section 41(2) of the Act, loss in the case of assets, sold, discarded, demolished or destroyed & CO No.14/RPR/18 are allowed to be claimed but not the case ... approved Valuer is not in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The ld Counsel of the assessee referred to the provisions of section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) when he was queried that under what provisions

JCIT, Special Range-4, New Delhi vs. Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5810/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Wasim Arshad, CIT- DR

facts of the case. The ld. CIT(A), though convinced that section 41(1) is not applicable, but proceeded to apply provisions of section 41(2) and 43(6) of the Act and directed the AO to justify the WDV of block of assets of bottles and crates by reducing ... though the ld. CIT(A) accepted that section 41(1) of the Act does not apply, but grossly erred in applying provisions of section 41(2) and 43(6) of the Act. 36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F

Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 4, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 5671/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Delhi17 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Wasim Arshad, CIT- DR

facts of the case. The ld. CIT(A), though convinced that section 41(1) is not applicable, but proceeded to apply provisions of section 41(2) and 43(6) of the Act and directed the AO to justify the WDV of block of assets of bottles and crates by reducing ... though the ld. CIT(A) accepted that section 41(1) of the Act does not apply, but grossly erred in applying provisions of section 41(2) and 43(6) of the Act. 36. We are of the considered view that section 41(2) of the Act was inserted W.E.F

The ACIT Cir 6(3), Mumbai vs. M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3854/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

M/S. Grasim Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir - 6(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3517/MUM/2006[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2023AY 2005-2006

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri a/wFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 43B

record-keeping. Moreover, the practice of granting the terminal allowance as per section 32(1)(iii) or taxing the balancing charge as per section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act necessitate the keeping of records of depreciation already availed of by each asset eligible for depreciation. In order ... depreciation in respect of each asset, which was previ- ously allowable under section 32(1) (iii) and also taxing of balancing charge under section 41(2) in the year of sale. Instead of these two provisions, now whatever is the sale-proceed of sale of any depreciable asset

Qualcomm Incorporated, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), Intl. Taxation, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 7559/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Dey

For Appellant: Sh. Percy J. Pardiwala, Sr. CounselFor Respondent: Sh. Gangadhar Panda, CIT(DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 9(1)(vi)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY