<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (12) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207851</link>
    <description>Whether remission or cessation of a trading liability can be treated as taxable under section 28(iv) or must be governed by section 41(1): applying the Supreme Court principle that unilateral action by a debtor cannot effect remission or cessation (remission requires creditor, cessation arises by operation of law, unequivocal debtor declaration, contract, or discharge), the court held such events fall within the specific regime of s.41(1) rather than the general s.28(iv); consequence: the remission/cessation issue is to be dealt with under s.41(1), favouring the assessee. Whether benefits enjoyed by using amounts payable to sundry creditors constitute general business perquisites under s.28(iv): construing statutes to avoid rendering provisions redundant, the court treated s.41(1) as the special provision for remission/cessation and excluded those facts from s.28(iv); consequence: assessed in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2026 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181325" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (12) TMI 77 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207851</link>
      <description>Whether remission or cessation of a trading liability can be treated as taxable under section 28(iv) or must be governed by section 41(1): applying the Supreme Court principle that unilateral action by a debtor cannot effect remission or cessation (remission requires creditor, cessation arises by operation of law, unequivocal debtor declaration, contract, or discharge), the court held such events fall within the specific regime of s.41(1) rather than the general s.28(iv); consequence: the remission/cessation issue is to be dealt with under s.41(1), favouring the assessee. Whether benefits enjoyed by using amounts payable to sundry creditors constitute general business perquisites under s.28(iv): construing statutes to avoid rendering provisions redundant, the court treated s.41(1) as the special provision for remission/cessation and excluded those facts from s.28(iv); consequence: assessed in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207851</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>