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)

Amar Kant Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 43(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1887/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 Amar Kant Agarwal Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Prop: Ruchira Chemical Ward-43(1), 3, Govt. V/S. Corportion, 9, Ram Sevak Place (West), Mullick Lane, Kolkata-001 Kolkata-700007 [Pan No.Acypa 7815 P] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Miraj D Shah, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Shah, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 05-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-05-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata’S Order Dated 24.07.2017 Passed In Case No.312/Cit(A)-13/Kol/2014-15, Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Sole Substantive Dispute That Arose For My Apt Adjudication In The Instant Appeal Is Of Correctness Of Sec.41(1) Cessational Liability Addition Of ₹5 Lac In Respect Of Assessee’S Alleged Sundry Creditors M/S R.K. Trading Co. U/S 41(1) Of The Act. The Cit(A)’S Detailed Discussion Confirming The Impugned Addition Reads As Under:- “4. Decision:- I Have Gone Through The Contention Of The Assessee, The Order Passed By The Ao & The Submissions Made By The Appellant. The Decision Of This Appeal Is Given As Under:- Continued To Show The Amounts As Liability In His Balance Sheet. There Is No Cessation Of Liability. Hon. Madras High Court In Cit V. Tamilnadu Warehousing Corporation (2007) 292 Itr 310 Had Held - ‘The Assessee Had Continued To Show The Admitted Amount Of Rs.8/22/925J- As Liability In The Balance Sheet. The Undisputed Fact Was That It Was A Liability Reflected In The Balance Sheet. Once It Was Shown As Liability By The Assessee, The

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

Surinco Workwear P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO 8(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1290/MUM/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 बिाम/ M/S. Surinco Workwear Ito 8(3)(2) Private Ltd., R.No. 412, 36, Marol Industrial Aayakar Bhavan, V. Estate, Mumbai 400021 M. Vasanji Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400 059 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Aaacs5694K (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Ms. Heena Sheth Revenue By: Shri. O.P Meena (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.05.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 1290/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 01.11.2016 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-18/It-126/Ito-8(3)(2)/14-15, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-18, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2009-10, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From The Penalty Order Dated 28.03.2014 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2009- 10. I.T.A. No.1290/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Ms. Heena ShethFor Respondent: Shri. O.P Meena (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 204Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 41(1)

Rmg Alloy Steel Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 333/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.333/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Rmg Alloy Steel बिधम/ Dy. Cit Central Circle-3(4) Limited Nariman Point, Mumbai- Vs. (Formerly Known As M/S. 400021. Remi Metal Gujarat Ltd.) Welspun House, 4Th Floor, Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbbai-400013. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr2121C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri D. G. Pansari (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Farrokh Irani/ Mitesh Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.11.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -51, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - ―The Ground Or Grounds Of Appeal Are Without Prejudice To One Another. A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh Irani/ Mitesh ShahFor Respondent: Shri D. G. Pansari (DR)
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 41(1)Section 41(1)(a)