Goods and Services Tax : Explore the critical implications of Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 on taxpayers' Input Tax Credit (ITC) eligibility and the ...
Income Tax : Explore the intricacies of Income Tax Section 41, covering allowances, deductions, and financial transactions. Real-world examples...
Income Tax : Whether Remission Of Trading Liability Separately Taxable Where Income From Business Has Been Declared On Presumptive Basis U/S 44...
Income Tax : Any person being Individual/HUF/Company/Firm/LLP etc. providing any benefit or perquisite whether convertible into money or not, i...
Income Tax : ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION When a loan taken for acquiring a depreciable capital asset or a part of the purchase price of such capita...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi held that the Revenue could not substitute the assessee's consistent method of revenue recognition with the Percent...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that interest under Section 244A must be computed up to the actual date of refund issuance. Restricting interest...
Income Tax : Adjustment under section 143(1)(a)(iv) based on disallowance reported in Form 3CD was held to be within CPC's jurisdiction. Howeve...
Income Tax : Tribunal held that deduction for bad debts is allowable in the year in which the debts are actually written off in the books of ac...
Income Tax : The ITAT Raipur held that additions for cessation of liability cannot be made merely because creditor confirmations were not filed...
Custom Duty : Stay updated with the latest amendment to the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 by the Central Board of Indire...
Waived off loan means a situation wherein the lender voluntarily relieves a borrower of the obligation or liability to repay loan. This means that there is a surplus of cash/money in the hands of borrower and thus, a receipt in the hands of the borrower/assessee. Now the question is whether such waived off loan shall […]
Yagnesh Dayabhai Vyas Vs ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad) Ld. A.R. cited a judgment of ITAT Delhi Bench in the matter of Smt. Sudha Loyalka vs. ITO where A.O. made addition to assessee’s income under section 69C in respect of amount payable to creditors towards purchases, in view of fact that said purchases were duly recorded in […]
No addition can be made to the income of the assessee in this asst. years, as in the view of the AO the outstanding liability in question is bogus and non-existent. The question of cessation of such non-existent as bogus liability does not arise. Hence, Sec. 41(1) cannot be applied. Only when there is a genuine liability and there is cessation of such liability or it is written off in the books of account, then Sec. 41(1) of the Act can be applied.
ACIT Vs Sunderdeep Construction Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Indore) On perusal of the finding of Ld. CIT(A) as well as the facts narrated before us along with the documentary evidences it is predominantly clear that the alleged amount of bogus creditors are not in the form of sundry creditors. These amounts are advances against booking of […]
Hothur Traders Vs ACIT (ITAT Bangalore) In the present case, the assessee had received the amount in the course of its business, which are originally treated as an advance. These deposits neither claimed nor returned to the party concerned. There is no dispute that this impugned amount was received in the course of carrying on […]
Nama Properties Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Hyderabad) In the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the assessee it was held that the genuineness of the trade payables or creditors has to be examined in the year in which they originate and that unless the liability becomes unenforceable or is written off by the […]
The issue under consideration is whether Section 41(1) is applicable in case of waiver of liability incurred in respect of purchase of capital asset?
Non-appearance or non-response of creditors could not be sole ground to draw an adverse inference against assessee, when assessee had filed necessary evidence to prove that liability was genuine in nature, which was subsequently paid back by converting said liability into share application money.
Whether the CIT(A) is correct in holding that consideration received on assignment of know-how is chargeable to tax as Capital Gains?
The issue under consideration is whether CIT(A) is correct in deleting the addition made by AO u/s 41(1) for waiver of working capital loan and charge it u/s 28 of the Act?
