https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792006 Section 41(1) did not apply to the alleged trading liability because the amount continued to appear in the assessee's books and had not been written back. The creditor's response under section 133(6) confirmed that the sum remained receivable, which negatived any inference of remission or cessation. Mere delay in payment, or a timing discrepancy without evidence of waiver, extinguishment, legal unenforceability, or any bilateral act ending the liability, is insufficient to trigger section 41(1). The addition was therefore unjustified and was deleted, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 21 May 2026 08:30:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792006 Section 41(1) did not apply to the alleged trading liability because the amount continued to appear in the assessee's books and had not been written back. The creditor's response under section 133(6) confirmed that the sum remained receivable, which negatived any inference of remission or cessation. Mere delay in payment, or a timing discrepancy without evidence of waiver, extinguishment, legal unenforceability, or any bilateral act ending the liability, is insufficient to trigger section 41(1). The addition was therefore unjustified and was deleted, with the issue decided in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=792006