Section 41 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.38

Section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 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 is CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd. (410 ITR 244), cited in 63 of the 156 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 41

CIT v. Vasisth Chay Vyapar Ltd.
410 ITR 244 · 2019 · Supreme Court
63
citing judgments
Sedco Forex International Inc. v. CIT
399 ITR 1 · 2017 · Supreme Court
29
citing judgments

Section 44BB, which provides for presumptive taxation of profits and gains of business in the case of exploration of mineral oils, does not override the provisions of Sections 5, 9, or 90 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. For business profits to be taxed in India, the existence of a Permanent Establishment (PE) in India must be established by the Revenue.

CIT v. Edward Keventer (P.) Ltd.
115 ITR 149 · 1978 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

When assessing expenses under Section 40A(2), tax authorities must consider the entire position judiciously from the viewpoint of a prudent businessman, not arbitrarily or capriciously. The revenue must demonstrate tax evasion and cannot disallow expenses if the recipient is taxed at the same or higher rate.

Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2877 · 2024 · Reported
21
citing judgments

Banks can claim tax deductions for broken period interest on Held to Maturity (HTM) government securities if classified as stock-in-trade, treating it as revenue expenditure, not capital expenditure.

M/S Novozymes South Asia Put Ltd. v. ACIT
168 ITD 529 · 2018 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

The ITAT Mumbai in M/S Novozymes South Asia Put Ltd. v. ACIT (2018) has allowed employee stock option plans (ESOPs) as a deduction, recognizing them as an effective tool for employee reward and retention.

CIT v. Bhagat Shyam & Co.
188 ITR 608 · 1991 · High Court
10
citing judgments

For a revision under Section 263 to be valid, the Commissioner must independently apply their mind to the material placed before them and be satisfied that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, even if the Assessing Officer brought the material to their notice.

Smt. Sumitra Devi Khirwal v. CIT
84 ITR 26 · 1972 · High Court
10
citing judgments

Revision proceedings under section 263 are valid even when the Commissioner acts on records placed before him, rather than calling for them himself.

CIT v. Enron Oil & Gaspat Services Inc., Dehradun
29 Taxmann.com 419 · 2013 · High Court
6
citing judgments
HC) 114 ITA.No.4351 & 4457/Del./2018 L & T SUCG JV CC 27, New Delhi. (ii) Raghubir Singh v. DCIT
16 Taxmann.com 262 · 2011 · High Court
5
citing judgments
(i) Qualcomm Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. CIT(A)
174 Taxmann.com 592 · 2025 · High Court
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 41

Standard Industries Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3, Mumbai

In the result, on this appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1886/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1886/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2013-14) Standard Industries Ltd. बिधम/ Pcit-3 59, The Arcade, 1St Floor, 612, Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Vs. World Trade Centre, Cuffe Road, Mumbai-400020. Parade Colaba, Mumbai- 400005. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcs8888C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Mr. K. K. Ved Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/12/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit”] Dated 15/01/2018 & Pertains To A.Y.2013-14. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under: - “The Appellant Objects To The Order Dated 15 January 2018 (Received On 25 January 2018) Passed By The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax -3 (Referred To As Cit), Mumbai Under Section 263 Of The Income-Tax Act. 1961 ('The Act') On The Following Grounds: I. Validity Of Order Under Section 263

For Appellant: Mr. K. K. VedFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37