https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35250 HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A) and ITAT that the AO wrongly invoked Explanation I to Section 41(1). The AO made no requisite finding under Section 41(1), and mere six-year age of liabilities did not justify presuming cessation without a bilateral act or creditor remissions. There was no proof of prior deduction or that the assessee obtained a benefit by cessation, and creditor confirmations and accounts were produced. The addition on account of presumed cessation was held to be based on conjecture and therefore unsustainable. en-us Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Sep 2025 10:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35250 HC dismissed the appeal, upholding the CIT(A) and ITAT that the AO wrongly invoked Explanation I to Section 41(1). The AO made no requisite finding under Section 41(1), and mere six-year age of liabilities did not justify presuming cessation without a bilateral act or creditor remissions. There was no proof of prior deduction or that the assessee obtained a benefit by cessation, and creditor confirmations and accounts were produced. The addition on account of presumed cessation was held to be based on conjecture and therefore unsustainable. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35250