← 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)

Ramaniyam Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Circle-I, Ltu, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 2439/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2439/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ramaniyam Real Estates Private Limited. 17/35, Ii Main Road, Besant Nagar, Chennai - 600 020. [Pan: Aaacr-2276-A] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) Acit, Vs. Circle -1, Ltu, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. Girish Kumar, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Herein After “Ld.Cit(A)] Dated 13.08.2025 & Pertains To

For Appellant: Shri. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194CSection 194JSection 40

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'बी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री मनु कुमार गिरि, न्यायिक

ACIT-CC-7(3), Mumbai vs. Infratech Builders and Agro Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2362/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10 Asst. Commissioner Of Income Vs Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Tax Central Circle 7(2), Ltd. Mumbai 216 Shah & Nahar Industrial E, Room No.655, 6Th Floor Dr. E Moses Road Worli Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai 400018, Maharashtra Mumbai, Mumbai India, Mumbai Pan: Aabci7392B Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Shri Niraj Sheth, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. Dr (Virtually Appeared) Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawalthis Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Arising Out Of The Order Cit(A),- 49, Itba/Apl/S/250/2024-25/1072911991(1) Mumbai Vide Order Dated 04.02.2025 Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 143(3)/147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 13.12.2016 For A.Y. 2009-10. 2. Grounds Taken By The Revenue Are As Under: 1."On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Reopening Of The Assessment Under Section 147 Of The Income Infratech Builders & Agro Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2009-10 Tax Act, 1961 Is Bad In Law Without Considering The Fact That The Assess Had Failed To Provide 1 The Details Of Payments Made To M/S. Bovis India Pvt. Ltd. & M/S. Bovis Lend Lease India Pvt. Ltd. & No Service Tax Was Charged On The Payments Made To These Companies, Unlike Other Similar Payments.”

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80

taken note of the transactions with the two parties on which TDS was not done and therefore, alleged for its disallowance under section 40(a)(ia). Thus, it is noted that there is nothing new which has been brought on record subsequent to the original assessment proceedings for invoking