← All Phrases

“disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)”

DisallowancesSection 40(a)(ia)Section 40(a)(ia)406 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1), cited in 1,484 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
501
citing judgments

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. DCIT
383 ITR 529 · 2016 · High Court
408
citing judgments

Where an assessee has sufficient interest-free funds, investments yielding exempt income are presumed to be made out of such funds, precluding disallowance of related interest expenditure under section 14A.

CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.
319 ITR 204 · 2009 · High Court
378
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not applicable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Ansal Land Mark Township (P) Ltd.
377 ITR 635 · 2015 · High Court
369
citing judgments

The second proviso to Section 40(a)(ia), introduced by the Finance Act, 2012, is curative and applies retrospectively from April 1, 2005. Consequently, if the recipient of a payment has filed their return and paid taxes on the amount from which tax was not deducted at source, the payer's expenditure cannot be disallowed under Section 40(a)(ia).

Taparia Tools Ltd. v. JCIT
372 ITR 605 · 2015 · Supreme Court
343
citing judgments

An expenditure does not automatically become capital in nature merely because it results in some enduring benefit for the assessee; it can be treated as revenue expenditure if incurred for genuine business purposes.

CIT v. Taikisha Engineering India Ltd.
370 ITR 338 · 2015 · High Court
252
citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned by the assessee in the relevant previous year. If no exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A can be made.

Judgments citing disallowance under section 40(a)(ia)

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1730/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1729/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं. 1730/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Kundan Industries Ltd. Kundan House, Harisiddhi Estate, Gorai Pada, Vasai (East), Palghar, Maharashtra-401208. Pan: Aaack6811G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jt.Cit , Tds Range, Ground Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West)-400602. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 20.05.2022. Since, The Grounds Raised In 2 आअसं. 1729 & 1730/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ita Nos. 1729 & 1730/M/2022 (Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19) Both The Appeals & The Facts Germen To The Grounds Of Appeals Are Identical, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 271C

bonafide belief that no TDS was to be deducted on the payments made to non-banking financial institution. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and other additions were also made in the assessment order, which are accepted by the assessee

Kundan Industries Limited, Mumbai vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range, Thane

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1729/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Ms. Padmavathy Sआअसं. 1729/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2017-18) आअसं. 1730/मुं/2022 (िन.व. 2018-19) Kundan Industries Ltd. Kundan House, Harisiddhi Estate, Gorai Pada, Vasai (East), Palghar, Maharashtra-401208. Pan: Aaack6811G ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Jt.Cit , Tds Range, Ground Floor, Qureshi Mansion, Gokhale Road, Naupada, Thane (West)-400602. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Sh. Rahul Hakani, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Pune (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Cit(A)’) For The Assessment Years (Ay) 2017-18 & 2018-19, Respectively. Both The Impugned Orders Are Of Even Date I.E. 20.05.2022. Since, The Grounds Raised In 2 आअसं. 1729 & 1730/मुं/2022(िन.व. 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ita Nos. 1729 & 1730/M/2022 (Ay 2017-18 & 2018-19) Both The Appeals & The Facts Germen To The Grounds Of Appeals Are Identical, These Appeals Are Taken Up Together For Adjudication & Are Decided By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Hakani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Kishinchandani, Sr. DR
Section 271C

bonafide belief that no TDS was to be deducted on the payments made to non-banking financial institution. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act and other additions were also made in the assessment order, which are accepted by the assessee