Section 41(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.38

Section 41(2) 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(2) is CIT v. Indo Nippon Chemicals Co. Ltd. (261 ITR 275), cited in 204 of the 53 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 41(2)

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.

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.

19 ITR 191 Lakshimaratan Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)
73 ITR 634 · 1969 · Supreme Court
61
citing judgments

When claiming an expenditure under section 37(1), the onus is on the assessee to prove the necessary facts, not on the revenue. Mere production of vouchers is insufficient if the genuineness of payment is doubted.

Sharp Business System v. CIT III
27 Taxmann.com 50 · 2012 · High Court
53
citing judgments

A non-compete fee, being a capital expenditure, is not allowable as a deduction from income and does not qualify for depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Sharp Business System v. CIT
254 CTR 233 · 2012 · High Court
50
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on a non-compete fee as it constitutes an intangible asset, even if the right acquired cannot be transferred, provided it is treated as part of a block of assets.

Jamna Auto Industries v. CIT
167 Taxmann 192 · 2008 · High Court
25
citing judgments

Damages or penalties that are compensatory in nature are allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, while those that are penal and arise from a breach of law are not allowable as business expenditure.

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax v. Real Image Tech. (P) Ltd.
120 TTJ 983 · 2009 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Depreciation is allowable on non-compete fees when a businessman pays another to restrain them from competing, as this constitutes an intangible asset.

Income Tax Officer v. Medicorp Technologies India Ltd.
122 TTJ 394 · 2009 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowable on non-compete fees if they represent the acquisition of a business or commercial right, rather than an identifiable intangible asset.

Serum Institute of India Ltd. v. ACIT
135 ITD 69 · 2011 · ITAT
13
citing judgments

Depreciation on non-compete fees paid for acquiring a business is an allowable deduction. This treatment is confirmed even when the issue relates to the acquisition of a company and associated customer contracts.

ACIT v. GE Plastic India Ltd.
137 ITD 309 · 2012 · ITAT
11
citing judgments

Depreciation is not allowable on a non-compete fee as it is considered a revenue expenditure and not an intangible asset that is eligible for depreciation.

Judgments on Section 41(2)