TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1097
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ade u/s. 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] on account of cessation of liability without following the process of admitting additional evidence u/r 46A. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee received an amount of Rs. 8,22,08,000/- from M/s Sethi Housing Private Limited and the amount has been utilized by the assessee for the purpose of repayment of loan of Bank of India. The same is returnable to M/s Sethi Housing Private Limited. The assessee has not claimed this amount as trading expenses in the books of accounts in any of the preceding years. 4. The ld AO however considered the same as cessation of liability u/s. 41(1) and added the same to the income of the assessee u/s. 143(3) of the Act. 5. Aggr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....poses, but does not result in the distribution or extinguishment of its assets or liabilities. Winding up, on the other hand, is a judicial or administrative process by which the assets are realized and liabilities discharged under the oversight of the Tribunal or Liquidator. The legislature being mindful of this distinction specifically inserted provision 248(8) that recognizes the power of the Tribunal to wind up a company that has been struck off. 10. It was also contended that u/s. 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013, the name of a company struck off under Section 248 can be restored by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on application made within twenty years of the publication of the striking-off notice in the Official Gazette.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....164 taxmann.com 353 (SC) SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Soorajmull Nagarmull • [2023] 156 taxmann.com 266 (Delhi) HIGH COURT OF DELHI in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Arvind Kumar Arora • [2024] 165 taxmann.com 368 (Gujarat) HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Vishal Exports Overseas Ltd. • [2023] 153 taxmann.com 465 (Mumbai - Trib.) IN THE ITAT MUMBAI BENCH 'D' in the case of Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramani Exports • [2022] 143 taxmann.com 60 (Chandigarh - Trib.) IN THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH 'B' in the case of Income-tax Officer v. Mohinder Pal Singla ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not; or b) the successor in business has obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of which loss or expenditure was incurred by the first-mentioned person or some benefit in respect of the trading liability referred to in clause (a) by way of remission or cessation thereof, the amount obtained by the successor in business or the value of benefit accruing to the successor in business shall be deemed to be profits and gains of the business or profession, and accordingly chargeable to income-tax as the income of that previous year. Explanation 1. For the purposes of this su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he considered view that the said loan is in not in the nature of trading liability. Further, there is no remission or cessation of liability as the assessee has neither written back nor credited the said liability to its profit and loss account, which is a mandatory precondition for invoking Section 41(1). The said liability continued to appear as outstanding in the assessee's books not only for the year under consideration but also in subsequent financial years. In our considered view therefore, the provisions of section 41(1) is not applicable in the instant case. Ground 1 is dismissed. 19. In the facts of the case, we further find that there is no violation of 46A as the assessee never filed any additional evidence before the CIT(....