https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234105 HC held that the ITAT correctly deleted the addition under Section 41(1) because there was no established cessation or remission of liability; the assessee continued to acknowledge the debt and there was evidence extending limitation by acknowledgment. The court found no contract extinguishing the liability, no clear unenforceability, and potential set-off and winding-up proceedings affecting recovery. The genuineness of the original credit entry could only be examined for the year it arose (1984-85), and since the department had long accepted the outstanding balances, the CIT(A) could not confirm the addition. No substantial question of law arises. en-us Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Jul 2026 18:01:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234105 HC held that the ITAT correctly deleted the addition under Section 41(1) because there was no established cessation or remission of liability; the assessee continued to acknowledge the debt and there was evidence extending limitation by acknowledgment. The court found no contract extinguishing the liability, no clear unenforceability, and potential set-off and winding-up proceedings affecting recovery. The genuineness of the original credit entry could only be examined for the year it arose (1984-85), and since the department had long accepted the outstanding balances, the CIT(A) could not confirm the addition. No substantial question of law arises. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 24 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234105