← 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)

Triway Container Freight Station P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO Corporate Ward 3(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 254/CHNY/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.254 & 255/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S. Triway Container Freight Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Station P. Ltd., No. 14, Jaffer Street, Corporate Ward 3(2), Harbour, Chennai 600 001. Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aabct8013A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.A. ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.12.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 11, Chennai Dated 06.12.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14 & 14-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28.09.2013 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Admitting Nil Income After Claiming Deduction Under Section 80Ia(4) Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, C.AFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 80I

interest paid by the assessee as income in their returns of income. 14. We have heard the rival contentions. Against the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, by considering the CA certificate from M/s. Religare Finvest Ltd. to the extent of ₹.58,49,919/- certifying the admission

M/S Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 718/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojaria & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year M/S. Infosys Ltd., The Assistant Electronic City, Commissioner It(Tp)A No. Hosur Road, Of Income Tax, 2012-13 718/Bang/2017 Bangalore – 560 Circle – 100. 3(1)(1), Pan: Bangalore. Aaaci4798L : Shri Padamchand Khincha, Assessee By Ca : Shri K.V. Arvind & Shri Dilip, Revenue By Standing Counsels For Dept. Date Of Hearing : 15-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28/02/2017 Passed By The Ld.Acit, Circle – 3(1)(1), Bangalore For A.Y. 2012-13 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: General & Legal Grounds 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Assessing Officer & The Directions Of Hon’Ble Drp To The Extent Prejudicial To The Appellant Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed. Grounds On Denial Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In Respect Of 4 Sez Units Viz., Chennai – Unit 1, Chandigarh, Mangalore - Unit 1 & Pune Unit 1 2. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Denying Deduction Claimed Under Section 10Aa In The Return Of Income Totally Amounting To Rs. 2227,82,65,630 In Respect

Section 10ASection 14ASection 2Section 2(24)Section 40

disallowance is to be made in respect of subscription charges actually paid during the relevant previous year. Grounds on disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) / 40(a)(i) in respect of software expenses 17. The learned assessing officer has erred in disallowing software expenses paid/payable to residents and non residents ... liable for disallowance under section 40(a)(i) / 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 20. In any case and without prejudice, disallowance under section 40(a)(ia), if any, should be restricted to Rs. 9,07,081 being 30% of Rs. 30,23,602 as the amendment to section 40

The ACIT CC-1, Thane vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 75/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 76/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Ita No.76/Mum/2021(A.Y.2012-13) The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.98 & 99/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76& 75/Mum/2021,A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12) M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ... Appellant In Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 139Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40

assessee cannot be held to be the assessee in default under the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act, consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing ... withholding tax under section 194J of the Act. Since, the assessee failed to comply with statutory provisions, the Assessing Officer rightly made disallowance under section. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to deduct tax at source

The ACIT CC-1, Thane vs. M/S Renaissance Infrastructure, Mumbai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 75/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 75/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2011-12) आअसं. 76/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2012-13) Ita No.76/Mum/2021(A.Y.2012-13) The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent C.O. No.98 & 99/Mum/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.76& 75/Mum/2021,A.Y. 2012-13 & 2011-12) M/S. Renaissance Infrastructure, 501, Neelyog Square, Opp.Railway Station, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai 400 077 Pan:Aajfr-8593-C ..... Cross Objector बनाम Vs. The Acit Cc-1, Thane, Room No.40, A-Wing, 6Th Floor, Ashar I.T.Park, Road No.16-Z, Wagle Industrial Estate, Thane (West) 400 604 ... Appellant In Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Gautam ThackerFor Respondent: Ms. Mahita Nair
Section 139Section 194JSection 201(1)Section 40

assessee cannot be held to be the assessee in default under the provisions of section 201(1) of the Act, consequently, no disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act can be made. The ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee vehemently supported the impugned order and prayed for dismissing ... withholding tax under section 194J of the Act. Since, the assessee failed to comply with statutory provisions, the Assessing Officer rightly made disallowance under section. 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 7. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below examined. Undisputedly, the assessee failed to deduct tax at source