← 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)

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Gurgaon vs. DDIT, Circle- 2(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7846/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,77,629/- as disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), being payment of TDS amount deducted for assessment year ... which were claimed as deduction. However, while making such payments, the assessee had not deducted tax at source. Accordingly, payments made were disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is observed, before the departmental authorities, the assessee had merely stated that the payments made were

Pjsc Stroytransgaz, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5223/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,77,629/- as disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), being payment of TDS amount deducted for assessment year ... which were claimed as deduction. However, while making such payments, the assessee had not deducted tax at source. Accordingly, payments made were disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is observed, before the departmental authorities, the assessee had merely stated that the payments made were

Pjsc Stroytransagaz, New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5299/DEL/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 May 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2008-09 With Assessment Year: 2009-10 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Addl. Cit, Block Ep-15, Dr. Hose P. Rizal Range-2, Marg, Chanakya Puri, International Taxation, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2010-11 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 140, Circle 2(2), Aspen Greens, Nirvana International Taxation, Country, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent) With Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pjsc Stroytransgaz, Vs. Ddit, C/O- Deepak Chopra, 324, Circle 2(2), E-Space, Nirvana Country, International Taxation, South City-Ii, New Delhi Sector-50, Gurgaon Pan :Aahcs2254E (Appellant) (Respondent)

course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,77,629/- as disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), being payment of TDS amount deducted for assessment year ... which were claimed as deduction. However, while making such payments, the assessee had not deducted tax at source. Accordingly, payments made were disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It is observed, before the departmental authorities, the assessee had merely stated that the payments made were