Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.38

Section 41(1) falls under section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 38 (Certain sums deemed as profits and gains of business or profession) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 38 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 41(1) is Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT (227 ITR 172), cited in 621 of the 1,943 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 41(1)

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

CIT v. T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd.
222 ITR 344 · 1996 · Supreme Court
223
citing judgments

Unclaimed deposits received in the course of trading transactions and sundry credit balances written back are taxable as business income under Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they constitute a cessation of trading liability.

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.

CIT v. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd.
236 ITR 518 · 1999 · Supreme Court
203
citing judgments

For the purpose of Section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, a liability is considered to have ceased only when the creditor actively releases or writes off the amount, or when the liability ceases to exist in the assessee's books; mere expiry of the limitation period for recovery does not constitute cessation of liability.

CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.
404 ITR 1 · 2018 · Supreme Court
164
citing judgments

The waiver of a loan taken for acquiring capital assets is considered a capital receipt and is not taxable as income under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act. The ruling distinguishes between the waiver of trading liabilities and capital liabilities for tax purposes.

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.

CIT v. Godawari Power & Ispat Ltd.
42 Taxmann.com 551 · 2014 · High Court
104
citing judgments

Inter-unit transfer of power by an industrial undertaking eligible for Section 80IA deduction constitutes a specified domestic transaction under Section 92BA, requiring valuation at arm's length. This decision clarifies the application of Section 80IA(8) and transfer pricing regulations for such transactions.

Maruti Udyog v. DCIT
92 ITD 119 · 2005 · ITAT
87
citing judgments

The onus is on the revenue to establish the nexus between expenses incurred and exempt income before making a disallowance under section 14A.

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.

Judgments on Section 41(1)

M/S Abhyankar Brothers, Mumbai vs. ACIT-17(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6558/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am आमकय अऩीर सिं./ Ita No. 6558/Mum/2018 (ननधाायण वषा / Assessment Year 2013-14) M/S Abhyankar Brothers The Commissioner Of 216, Sant Tukaram Road, Carnac Income Tax, Circle-55 5Th Bunder, Mumbai-400 009 Floor, Earnest House, फनाभ/ Ncpa Marg, Mumbai-400 Vs. 021 (अऩीराथी / Appellant) (प्रत्मथी/ Respondent) स्थामी रेखा सिं./Pan No. Aaafa2467K अऩीराथी की ओय से/ Appellant By : Ms. Chaitee Lodhe, Ar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Shri. Brajendra Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing: 29.06.2021 घोषणा की तायीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 31.08.2021 आदेश / O R D E R भहावीय ससिंह, उऩाध्मऺ के द्वाया / Per Mahavir Singh, Vp: This Appeal Of Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)]-55 Mumbai, [In Short Cit(A)], In Appeal No. Cit(A)-55/Acit-17(1)/It-431/17-18 Dated 28.08.2018. The Assessment Was Framed By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 17(1), Mumbai (In Short Acit/ Ao) For The A.Y. 2013-14 Vide Order Dated 20.03.2016 Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is Against The Order Of 2. Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing Interest Under Section 37 Of The Act By Holding The Same Not For The Abhyankar Brothers; Ay 13-14 Purpose Of Business. For This, The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Ms. Chaitee Lodhe, ARFor Respondent: Shri. Brajendra Kumar, DR
Section 143(3)Section 37

Francois Compressor India Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 2504/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2504/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Francois Compressor India Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.147/1(New), Lavale Road, Appellant Pirangut, Tal. Mulshi, Dist. Pune – 412115. Pan : Aabcf0496K. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1 (2), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah. Revenue By : Shri Amol Kamat. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Final Assessment Order Dt.31.08.2017 Passed Under Sec.143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Under : The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Development & Sale

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Amol Kamat
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40Section 41(1)Section 92C

Murad Ibrahim Khan, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer W-23(2) (3), Mumbai

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5843/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No. 5843/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Murad Ibrahim Khan Ito – 23(2)(3) R. No. 9, 3Rd Floor Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra बिाम/ Premises My Building Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Vs. Navpada Road, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Mumbai-400 051 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Agzpk-9639-C (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Saboo-Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Andhle- Ld. Sr. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 10/08/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 10/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13 Arises Out Of The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-33, Mumbai [Cit(A)], Dated 16/08/2019 In The Matter Of Assessment Framed By Learned Assessing Officer (Ao) U/S 143(3) On 31/03/2015. The Assessee Is Aggrieved By Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.45.29 Lacs U/S 41(1) With Respect To Three Entities Viz. M/S Shreeji

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Saboo-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhle- Ld. Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)