What is the leading case on Section 41 of the Income Tax Act?

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (410 ITR 244) is the decision most relied on for Section 41, cited in 63 judgments.

Which cases are most cited on Section 41?

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (410 ITR 244) — 63 citing judgments; Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT (399 ITR 1) — 29 citing judgments; CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd. (115 ITR 149) — 28 citing judgments; Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877) — 11 citing judgments; M/S Novozymes South Asia Put Ltd. v. ACIT (168 ITD 529) — 10 citing judgments.

How many judgments are there on Section 41?

BharatTax indexes 55 ITAT, High Court and Supreme Court judgments that turn on Section 41 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Section 41 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 41 is CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (410 ITR 244), cited in 63 of the 55 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 41

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.

410 ITR 244 · 2019 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT

399 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

Section 44BB, which provides for presumptive taxation of profits and gains of business in the case of exploration of mineral oils, does not override the provisions of Sections 5, 9, or 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For business profits to be taxed in India, the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India must be established by the Revenue.

CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd.

115 ITR 149 · 1978 · Supreme Court

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.

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax

2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877 · 2024 · Reported

citing judgments

M/S Novozymes South Asia Put Ltd. v. ACIT

168 ITD 529 · 2018 · ITAT

citing judgments

CIT v. Bhagat Shyam & Co.

188 ITR 608 · 1991 · High Court

citing judgments

Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal v. CIT

84 ITR 26 · 1972 · High Court

citing judgments

CIT v. Enron Oil & Gaspat Services Inc., Dehradun

29 Taxmann.com 419 · 2013 · High Court

citing judgments

HC) 114 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. (ii) Raghubir Singh v. DCIT

16 Taxmann.com 262 · 2011 · High Court

citing judgments

(i) Qualcomm Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT(A)

174 Taxmann.com 592 · 2025 · High Court

citing judgments

Judgments on Section 41

PENNAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CIRCLE-5(1),, HYDERABAD

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

ITA 832/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 263

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)

ODISHA TELEVISION LIMITED,DELHI vs. CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 6501/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shukla, Accountnat Member

Section 143(1)

BANK OF BARODA (ERSTWHILE VIJAYA BANK),MUMBAI vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC, NEW DELHI, NFAC, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the

ITA 2533/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri Vimal Kumar Meena, (CIT DR)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 292Section 41

HOTEL SAI SIDDHI PVT. LTD.,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 687/PUN/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. Hotel Sai Siddhi Pvt. Ltd. Pcit-1, Nashik 3/4, Poush Sector, Lekha Nagar, Vs. Mumbai Agra Road, Nashik – 422009 Pan: Aabch4310G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-01-2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 263

CBRE SOUTH ASIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ADDITIONAL, JOINT, DEPUTY, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee is allowed

ITA 2282/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Cbre South Asia Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Additional, Joint, Deputy, Assistant Pti Building, 4, Ground Floor, Commissioner Of Income Tax, Parliament Street Central Delhi, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Parliament House, New Delhi Delhi Pin: 1100 01 Pan :Aaacc9308A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 139(5)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 251Section 40A(7)Section 41Section 43A

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AGRA vs. CHITAVALSAH JUTE MILLS LIMITED, NEW DELHI

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 99/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh(Through Virtual Hearing) Acit, Vs. Chitavalasah Jute Mills Ltd, Range-1, 73-74, 201, Sheetala House, Faridabad Nehru Place, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaccc6834D Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 04/12/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sukesh Kumar Jain, CIT DR

Section 144Section 271D

BALBIR KUMAR HUF,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO , CHANDIGARH

ITA 172/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

PAWAN KUMAR,FATEHABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, FATEHABAD

ITA 1112/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Bhan Nain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manav Bansal, CIT, DR

FORTREA SCIENTIFIC PRIVATE LIMITED,AKRUTI SOFTECH PARK - MUMBAI vs. PCIT - 3, AAYAKAR BHAVAN - MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 3477/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 3Section 37(1)Section 41Section 80G

DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), DELHI vs. FMI AUTOMOTIVE COMPONENTS PRIVATE LIMITED , HARYANA

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

ITA 3489/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandcit, Circle 7 (1), Vs. Fmi Automotive Components Private Limited, Delhi. Plot No.1, Subplot 4, 5, 8 & 9 Msil, Supplier Park, Phase 3A, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon – 1222 050 (Haryana). (Pan :Aabcf1682P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By :Shri S.K. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By :Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.06.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2024 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Nfac Has Erred In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee By Deleting The Addition Made By The Ao Amounting To Rs.5,90,59,019/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Foreign Exchange Loss On Account Of Plant & Machinery.

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

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

LOREAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO , MUMBAI

In the result, ground no. 25 to 35 including 27(a) are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6623/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Sept 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Smt.Renu Jauhri(Physical Hearing)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 254(1)Section 4Section 92Section 928Section 92C

AUGMONT ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - CIRCLE 6(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 3096/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shriom Prakash Kant & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanaugmont Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Acit Circle-6(1)(2), 201, A/B & 202, 2Nd Floor, Trade Vs. R. No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aayakar World, D-Wing, Kamala Mills Bhavan, Mumbai-400 020 Compound, S. B. Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400 003. Pan: Aagcr3007D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Ms. Ridhisha Jain, Ld. Ar Department Represented By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Ld. Dr Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing : 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.09.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 41Section 80G

KOUNTHEYA HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED ,CHIKKAMAGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 930/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(2)Section 41Section 43B

JCIT (OSD) I/C. TO DCIT CIRCLE-1(3)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. GARWARE HI-TECH FILMS LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 1133/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeejcit(Osd) I/C. To Dcit Circle- Vs Garware Hi-Tech Films Limited 1(3)(1), Mumbai 50A, Garware House, Swami Room No.540, 5Th Floor, Nityanand Marg, Vile Parle (East) Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, S.O. Mumbai-400 057 Mumbai-400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Dalpat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta - CIT DR

Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 35(1)(i)Section 41

ELSAMEX MAINTENANCE SERVICES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

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

ITA 1215/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri T R Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Bhupal Rapelli, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 244ASection 36(1)(va)Section 41

M/S. SAHA TEXTILE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 49(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 465/KOL/2025[2021-22]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Dcit, Circle-49(1) M/S Saha Textile Aaykar Bhavan, 29, Kb Bose Road, Uttarapan Complex, Kolkata-700124, Ultadanga Maniktala Civic Vs. West Bengal Centre, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Abyfs8639J Assessee By : Shri S.K. Pransukha, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, Dr Date Of Hearing: 19.05.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.07.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Pransukha, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Chakraborthy, DR

Section 143(1)Section 41

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTATK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5110/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyaआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4950/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 4946/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G बिाम Tax Department Block, Bandra Kurla Government Of India, Complex, Bandra, Ministry Of Finance, Maharashtra-400051 Maharashtra-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5075/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2020-21) आयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 5110/Mum/2024 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2021-22) Dcit-2(3)(1), Mumbai V/S. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. 552, Aayakar Bhawan, बिाम 27 Bkc, Plot No. C 27, G M.K. Road, Churchgate, Block, Bandra Kurla Maharashtra-400020 Complex, Bandra, Maharashtra-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack4409J Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agrawal राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Ritesh Misra

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 41

DCIT-2(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 5075/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 41

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 4950/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra

Section 41

Showing 1–20 of 55 · Page 1 of 3