https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768221 ITAT Hyderabad ruled that debt forgiveness under a settlement agreement cannot be taxed under Section 28(iv) as it constitutes monetary benefit, not benefit in kind. The tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent in Mahindra case, holding Section 28(iv) applies only to non-monetary benefits with business connection. Section 41(1) was also deemed inapplicable as no prior deduction was claimed for the forgiven debt. In assessment under Section 153A, fresh expenditure claims without incriminating material from search operations were disallowed, but the tribunal directed exclusion of debt forgiveness income and deletion of expenditure disallowance additions. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Apr 2025 07:50:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768221 ITAT Hyderabad ruled that debt forgiveness under a settlement agreement cannot be taxed under Section 28(iv) as it constitutes monetary benefit, not benefit in kind. The tribunal relied on Supreme Court precedent in Mahindra case, holding Section 28(iv) applies only to non-monetary benefits with business connection. Section 41(1) was also deemed inapplicable as no prior deduction was claimed for the forgiven debt. In assessment under Section 153A, fresh expenditure claims without incriminating material from search operations were disallowed, but the tribunal directed exclusion of debt forgiveness income and deletion of expenditure disallowance additions. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Mar 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768221