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)

Mr.Bharat Patodia, Mumbai vs. Dy. CIT CC-1(1), Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 6012/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6012/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) & आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6013/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Bharat Patodia Dcit Cc 1(1), बिाम/ R. No. 903, 9Th Floor, Old B-602, Plot No. C/3 Millenium Orchid, Sector-12, Kharghar, Cgo Building, M. K. Road, Vs. Navi Mumbai-410210 Mumbai-400 020 स्थायीलेखा िं./ जीआइआर िं./ Pan/Gir No. Afnpp-9577-K (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Ms. Hiral Sejpal– Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Narendra Jangpangi– Ld. Cit-Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 26/07/2021 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 06/08/2021 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1.1 The Grievance Of The Assessee In Aforesaid Appeals For Assessment Years (Ay) 2014-15 & 2015-16 Is Common. It Is Admitted Position That Adjudication Of Any One Appeal Shall Equally Apply To The Other Appeal Also. For The Purpose Of Adjudication, The Appeal For Ay

For Appellant: Ms. Hiral Sejpal– Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Narendra Jangpangi– Ld. CIT-DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 68

Chandrakant Ramchandra Pujari, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 5, Panvel

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

ITA 440/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.440/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Chandrakant Ramchandra Pujari, Rajlaxmi Enterprises, Plot No.814, Road No.8, Kwc, Steel Market, Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai-410218. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Akmpp3455C बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-5, ……""यथ" / Respondent Panvel. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Thane (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 21.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Not Allowing Sufficient Time To The Assessee During The Proceedings Before Him Which Is Against The Principle Of Natural Justice & Therefore The Said Order Is To Be Considered As Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. Without Prejudice To The Ground No.1, The Learned Cit (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Addition U/S 41(1) / 68 Of The Act On Account Of The Outstanding Balances Of Creditors Amounting To Rs.45,25,259 Without Appreciating The Facts & Submissions Made Before The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Cit (A) In This Behalf. 3. Without Prejudice To The Ground No.1, The Learned Cit (A) Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding Addition U/S 68 Of The Act On Account Of The Advance Received From Customer Amounting To Rs.12,00,000 Without Appreciating The Facts & Submissions Made Before The Learned Ao As Well As Learned Cit (A) In This Behalf.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 41(1)Section 68