Section 41(4) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.38

Section 41(4) 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(4) is CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. (316 ITR 391), cited in 51 of the 78 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 41(4)

CIT v. Bank of Rajasthan Ltd.
316 ITR 391 · 2009 · High Court
51
citing judgments

Broken period interest paid on the purchase of securities constitutes capital expenditure and is therefore not allowable as a revenue deduction.

South Indian Bank Ltd. v. CIT
262 ITR 579 · 2003 · High Court
48
citing judgments

For banks, bad debts written off from non-rural advances are not subject to the limitations of the provisos to sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viii), as these provisos apply only to rural advances; section 36(1)(viia) also applies exclusively to rural advances. Additionally, depreciation on investments valued at market price on the balance sheet date is eligible for deduction.

DCIT v. Datacraft India Ltd.
40 SOT 295 · 2010 · ITAT
45
citing judgments

Automated Teller Machines (ATMs) are classified as computers and are eligible for a higher rate of depreciation when their core mechanical functions are integrated with and dependent on the computer's processing capabilities.

State Bank of Mysore v. DCIT
33 SOT 7 · 2009 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

When bad debts written off were not allowed as a deduction, any subsequent recovery from such bad debts cannot be brought to tax. This principle is upheld even if a deduction for provisions for bad and doubtful debts was allowed under section 36(1)(viia).

Nectar Beverages (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
314 ITR 314 · 2009 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to taxing a balancing charge under section 41(2) or to bad and doubtful debts specifically covered under section 41(4), as these provisions deal with distinct circumstances.

CIT v. Karnataka Bank Ltd.
349 ITR 705 · 2012 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

Advances made by banks that become bad debts are eligible for deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) if they meet the conditions specified in Section 36(2).

CIT v. City Union Bank Ltd.
291 ITR 144 · 2007 · High Court
32
citing judgments

When investments are made in accordance with the Income Tax Act, and the market price of these investments changes from the value shown in the opening balance at the year-end, depreciation on such investments can be allowed.

Article 12 of the Constitution. 2.14.2 Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram
1 SCC 421 · 1975 · Reported
29
citing judgments

The concept of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution has expanded beyond a mere cohesive machinery of authority to include service corporations acting as instrumentalities or agencies of the State, even when engaged in commercial activities.

CIT v. Bank of India
218 ITR 371 · 2015 · High Court
26
citing judgments

Expenses arising from foreign exchange fluctuations on revenue expenditure and foreign currency loans for day-to-day business operations are notional or anticipated losses and are allowable.

High Courts in CIT v. Suzlon Energy Ltd.
215 Taxmann 272 · 2013 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income Tax Act is not applicable to investments made in tax-free securities if interest-free funds are available with the assessee. This is because there is a presumption that such investments are made out of these available interest-free funds.

Judgments on Section 41(4)

Indian Overseas Bank, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

In the result the same cannot be treated as erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of Revenue

ITA 1494/CHNY/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jul 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1494/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2022-23 Indian Overseas Bank, V. The Principal Commissioner Of Tax Compliance & Payment Cell, Income Tax, 5Th Floor, Annexe Building, Chennai Indian Overseas Bank, No.763, Annasalai, Chennai-600 002. [Pan: Aaaci1223J] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. C. Naresh, C.A, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Pcit, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Pcit’), Chennai-4 Dated 03.03.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2022-23. Grounds Of Appeal 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Pcit Erred In Invoking The Provisions Of Section 263 & Revising The Order Of Ao Passed U/S. 143(3) Dated 22-03-2024 Without Coming To Conclusion The Order Was Erroneous But Merely Directing The Ao To Re- Examine Various Issues. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Pcit Erred In Passing The Order U/S. 263 Without Taking Into Consideration The Specific Submissions Made By Appellant To The Show Cause Notice. Indian Overseas Bank Without Prejudice To Above Grounds On Jurisdiction, Even On Merits -

For Appellant: Mr. C. Naresh, C.A, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 36Section 41(4)

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Sundaram Finance Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 3033/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.3033 /Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 The Deputy Commissioner Of Sundaram Finance Limited Income-Tax, Vs. 21 Patullos Road, Ltu, Circle 1 Anna Road Ho Chennai. Chennai – 600 002. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) [Pan: Aaacs4944A] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. R.Anita, Addl.Cit प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18 Against The Order U/S.270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Assessment Unit (In Short ‘Ao’), Dated 24.03.2023. :-2-: Ita. No.3033/Chny/2025

For Appellant: Ms. R.Anita, Addl.CITFor Respondent: Shri. R.Vijayaraghavan, Advocate
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 270Section 270ASection 41Section 41(4)