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...
Corporate Law : Delhi High Court rules in Mukesh Udeshi vs Jindal Steel Power Ltd, emphasizing that only parties to arbitration proceedings can ch...
Income Tax : ITAT Delhi rules against Section 41(1) addition when no cessation of liability occurs, directing cancellation of a demand in the c...
Income Tax : Dive into the detailed analysis of Syama Prasad Mookerjee Port's case against DCIT at ITAT Kolkata regarding Section 41(1) of the ...
Custom Duty : Lovy International challenged rejection of Drawback to ROSCTL conversion. CESTAT Delhi ruled CBEC Circular time limit invalid. Det...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai rules in favor of Ecokrin Hygiene Pvt. Ltd., deleting additions under section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act solely based...
Custom Duty : Stay updated with the latest amendment to the Sea Cargo Manifest and Transhipment Regulations, 2018 by the Central Board of Indire...
ITAT Jaipur held In the case of M/s Brothers Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO that the case laws referred by the CIT (A) are squarely distinguishable on the ground that there was a written off either by the assessee or bilaterally
Smt. Sumitra Devi Agarwal Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)- The AO has questioned the genuineness of the liability and in absence of the requisite confirmation, has held the same to be a bogus liability. Where the liability itself has been held to be a bogus liability, where is the question of remission or cessation thereof.
ITAT Delhi has held in the case of Perfect Paradise Emporium Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO that If creditors are found bogus then the amount can be added back to income u/s 68 as unexplained cash credits or us 41(1) as business income.
The Supreme Court in CCIT vs. Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. (2002) 20 SITC 172 (SC) has laid down that the resort to section 41(1) can be taken only if the liability of the assessee can be said to have ceased finally and there is no possibility or reviving it. Also, it has held that an unilateral action on the part of the assessee by way of writing-off the liability in its accounts does not necessarily mean that the liability ceased in the eye of law.
Section 41 (1) of the act provides treating of trading liability on cessation as deemed profit in business or profession. But section has to apply when there is benefit upon such cessation in form of any remission.
In the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. V. S. Dempo & Company Ltd, Goa High Court has held that the principal amount of loan taken for purchase of capital assets was on capital account and therefore on cessation of its repayment there is no occasion to apply Section 41 (1) of the Act. And resultant income should only be treated as capital receipt.
CIT Vs. M/S Mcdowell & Co Ltd Now Known As United Spirits Ltd (Karnataka High Court) In the instant case, as per the scheme he was allowed to retain the sales tax as determined by the competent authority and pay the same 15 years thereafter. The tax collected was deemed to have been paid and, […]
The Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the assessee had continued to show the admitted liabilities in its balance sheet, the same could not be treated as cessation of liabilities. Merely because the liabilities were outstanding for last many years, it could not be inferred that the said liabilities has ceased to exist.
Section 41(1) of the Act would apply in a case where there has been remission or cessation of liability during the year under consideration subject to the conditions contained in the statute being fulfilled. Additionally, such cessation or remission has to be during the previous year relevant to the assessment year under consideration.
From the facts of the case it reveals that not only the existence of outstanding liability of labour charges for so many years is improbable in the normal course of business but the assessee has also failed to give any evidence regarding the genuineness of the creditors,
