Concessional Basic Customs Duty on Ethernet switches: classification as enterprise switches upheld, challenge dismissed for lack of substantial law qu...
Insolvency petition based on admitted debt and default upheld; challenge for malicious initiation rejected, settlement may proceed under resolution fr...
Quashing of FIR and challenge to ECIR over alleged diversion of funds and preferential ESOP pricing dismissed after prima facie money-laundering findi...
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.