https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234305 HC upheld the orders of CIT(A) and Tribunal deleting the addition under s. 41(1) in respect of unclaimed unsecured loans. It held that the foundational requirement for invoking s. 41(1) is that an allowance or deduction must have been granted in an earlier assessment year in respect of a loss, expenditure or trading liability. As it was undisputed that no such allowance or deduction had ever been claimed or allowed to the assessee, the alleged cessation of liability could not be taxed as deemed income. HC concluded that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the revenue's appeal, deciding the matter in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 10:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234305 HC upheld the orders of CIT(A) and Tribunal deleting the addition under s. 41(1) in respect of unclaimed unsecured loans. It held that the foundational requirement for invoking s. 41(1) is that an allowance or deduction must have been granted in an earlier assessment year in respect of a loss, expenditure or trading liability. As it was undisputed that no such allowance or deduction had ever been claimed or allowed to the assessee, the alleged cessation of liability could not be taxed as deemed income. HC concluded that no substantial question of law arose and dismissed the revenue's appeal, deciding the matter in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=234305