Attachment and proclamation of sale of immovable property: limitation treated from financial year end; proclamation held within period, petition dismi...
Second Schedule attachment and validity of a post-notice mortgage: TRO cannot declare mortgage void ab initio; sale and appropriation allowed thereaft...
Limitation for final assessment under sections 144C and 153 treated jointly, resulting in quashing of timebarred assessment order and liberty to reviv...
Deductibility of settlement payments for securities law penalties and treatment of unexplained cash credits in share trading -- Tribunal upholds posit...
Threshold for allottee-initiated insolvency petitions in leasehold real estate upheld; petition admitted after possession letters deemed legally ineff...
Contravention of foreign exchange rules in crossborder diamond payments; appellate tribunal reduces one appellant's penalty for delay and proportional...
Whether an outstanding loan liability could be taxed as remission/cessation under s.41(1) was rejected because s.41(1) requires a prior allowance/deduction and a trading liability that is remitted/ceased, typically evidenced by write-back/credit to P&L; here the amount was a capital loan used to repay a bank loan, no expenditure had been debited, no recovery was shown, and the liability remained acknowledged and continuously outstanding in the books, hence deletion of the addition was upheld. The plea of breach of r.46A failed as no additional evidence was filed before the first appellate authority, so r.46A was not attracted. Explanation 1 to s.41(1) was held inapplicable due to absence of any unilateral write-off of a trading liability. - ITAT
Whether an outstanding loan liability could be taxed as remission/cessation under s.41(1) was rejected because s.41(1) requires a prior allowance/deduction and a trading liability that is remitted/ceased, typically evidenced by write-back/credit to P&L; here the amount was a capital loan used to repay a bank loan, no expenditure had been debited, no recovery was shown, and the liability remained acknowledged and continuously outstanding in the books, hence deletion of the addition was upheld. The plea of breach of r.46A failed as no additional evidence was filed before the first appellate authority, so r.46A was not attracted. Explanation 1 to s.41(1) was held inapplicable due to absence of any unilateral write-off of a trading liability. - ITAT
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
