TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rules in favor of assessee, Sections 41(1) & 28(iv) additions deemed unsustainable</h1> <h3>Pelican Tobacco India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi.</h3> Pelican Tobacco India Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT, Central Circle-7, New Delhi. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Addition under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Summary:Issue 1: Addition under Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961The assessee argued that the outstanding liability reflected in its books of account had not ceased during the year, making the addition of Rs. 7,02,059/- by the AO under Section 41(1) unsustainable. The Tribunal referred to judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decision in CIT v. Jain Exports (P.) Ltd. [2013] and the Bombay High Court's decision in PCIT v. Batliboi Environmental Engineering Ltd. [2022], which established that merely because a liability is barred by limitation, it does not cease to be a debt. Consequently, the Tribunal found that the AO erred in making the addition under Section 41(1).Issue 2: Addition under Section 28(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961The assessee contended that the advance received from M/s Deserts Sands General Trading and M/s Gajpati Oversea, shown as liabilities in the books of account, were not in the nature of benefit or perquisite within the meaning of Section 28(iv). The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's decision in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. and the Panaji Tribunal's decision in Infrastructure Logistics (P.) Ltd. v. JCIT, which clarified that Section 28(iv) applies only when the benefit is received in a form other than money. Since the advances were in the form of money, the provisions of Section 28(iv) were not applicable. The Tribunal concluded that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in applying Section 28(iv) and modifying the assessment order.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, holding that the additions under Sections 41(1) and 28(iv) were unsustainable based on the cited judicial precedents. The grounds raised by the assessee were allowed, and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
