← All Phrases

“Section 132(41)”

Section References (mined)Section 132Section 132(41)4 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 132(41) is CIT v. Chaphalkar Bro (88 Taxmann.com 178), cited in 95 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 132(41)

CIT v. Chaphalkar Bro
88 Taxmann.com 178 · 2017 · Supreme Court
95
citing judgments

Subsidies granted under a Government Industrial Scheme to accelerate industrial development and generate employment are capital in nature, determined by the 'purpose test', regardless of the timing, source, or form of the subsidy.

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.

Raja Bahadur Visheshwara Singh v. CIT
41 ITR 685 · 1961 · Supreme Court
67
citing judgments

The principle of res judicata or estoppel does not apply to income tax proceedings, as each assessment year is a distinct unit. Mere entries in the accounts of a third party are not sufficient proof to make additions to an assessee's income.

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.

196 (Kol.-Trib.) 11. Century Enka Limited v. Dy. CIT
154 ITD 426 · 2015 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

Additional depreciation allowance that was already granted in the original assessment cannot be withdrawn in a subsequent assessment.

CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd.
115 ITR 149 · 1978 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

When assessing expenses under Section 40A(2), tax authorities must consider the entire position judiciously from the viewpoint of a prudent businessman, not arbitrarily or capriciously. The revenue must demonstrate tax evasion and cannot disallow expenses if the recipient is taxed at the same or higher rate.

102 ITR 281 41-44 4 Rajesh Mahajan v. CIT (2010) 320 ITR 74 45-49 5 Arti Ship Breaking v. DIT
92 ITR 287 · 1973 · High Court
22
citing judgments

An order transferring the jurisdiction for an assessment is required under section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for an assessment to be validly initiated by an officer without territorial jurisdiction.

CIT v. Alvares and Thomas
394 ITR 647 · 2017 · High Court
15
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act can only be invoked if there is a remission or cessation of a trading liability coupled with the assessee obtaining a benefit from such cessation. The absence of confirmation letters from creditors does not automatically imply cessation of liability.

Judgments citing Section 132(41)