← 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)

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1254/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

ordinate bench in ITA No. 71/2022 dated 11.10.2022, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "11. As far as disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is concerned, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the assessee has deducted tax at source under Section ... Tribunal by the Revenue." 15. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the issues of 'receivables' as well as 'disallowance' under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are essentially questions of fact, which give rise to no substantial questions of law especially when the findings of the ITAT

Ernst & Young U.S. LLP, Noida vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle International Tax 1(2)(2), New Delhi

In the result, bot the appeals of the assessee stand allowed

ITA 1243/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Prakash Chand Yadav & Shri Naveen Chandraita No.1243/Del/2025 (Assessment Year 2022-23) Ernst & Young U.S. Llp Acit, Circle, C/O Authorized Representative, International Tax- Ernst & Young Llp, Vs. 1(2)(2), New Delhi. 5Th Floor, Tower-2, Plot No.2B, Sector-126, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)-201304. Pan-Aadfe0355M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri S. Ganesh, Sr. Adv. & Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. Department By Shri Nikhil Kumar Govila, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/07/2025 O R D E R Per Bench: The Present Appeals Of The Assessee Are Arising Out From The Order Of Ld. Assessing Officer Dated 18Th December, 2024 & 12Th December, 2024 & Relates To Assessment Year 2018-19 & Assessment Year 2022-23 Respectively.

Section 139(4)

ordinate bench in ITA No. 71/2022 dated 11.10.2022, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "11. As far as disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is concerned, this Court finds that there is no dispute that the assessee has deducted tax at source under Section ... Tribunal by the Revenue." 15. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the issues of 'receivables' as well as 'disallowance' under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act are essentially questions of fact, which give rise to no substantial questions of law especially when the findings of the ITAT

M/S.Mahogany Logistics Services Pvt. Ltd., Madurai vs. PCIT, Madurai-1

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1631/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1631/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mahogany Logistics Services Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax-1, 10, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. Madurai 625 002. [Pan:Aafcd8781R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.03.2024 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 1, Madurai Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company [Earlier Known As M/S. Drsr Logistics Services Private Limited] Filed Its Return Of Income For The Ay 2018-19 Claiming Loss Of ₹.31,28,98,436/- Under 2

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 139(9)Section 143(3)Section 201Section 263Section 36Section 37Section 40

complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason to verify the low income in comparison to high loans/investments in shares, lower amount of disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) and demand raised under section 201 of the Act for non- deduction and short deduction of TDS. The Assessing Officer completed ... pointed out by the ld. DR, the ld. PCIT clearly held that there was no enquiry in the proper perspective except for disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Therefore, the contention of the ld. AR that the Assessing Officer made due enquiry and no specific adjustment

Lakshmanan, Karthik vs. Assistant Commissioner, Salem

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1309/CHNY/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1309/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2023-24 Lakshmanan Karthik, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 5-82/Na, South Veethi, Income Tax, Thammampatty Main Road, Ward 1 Attur T.K., Salem 636 107. Salem. [Pan:Dpspk6889B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.07.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.02.2024 Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Kolkata For The Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 6 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit As Well As Medical Reports, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are 2

For Appellant: Ms. Subhashini Ganapathy, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Supraja, Addl.CIT
Section 143(1)Section 40

only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made towards disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] for non-deduction of taxes on professional/consultancy charges paid to various parties. 4. Brief ... file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. 7. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. Against the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act for non-deduction of TDS, the contention of the assessee is that deductees already accounted the receipts from

Bajaj Auto Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 3(4), Mumbai

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2786/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Prabhash Shankarbajaj Auto Limited, The Deputy Commissioner 2Nd Floor, Bajaj Bhawan, Vs. Ofincome-Tax, Officer, Circle 3(4), Room No. 421, 4Th Floor, Aayakar 226, Jamnalal Bajaj Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Pan: Aadcb2923M Mumbai-400020 Appellant Respondednt Assessee Represented By Ms. Vasantiben Patel, Advocate Department Represented By Shri. Satyaprakash R. Singh, Cit-Dr. Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/06/2025 Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 13/03/2025 For Assessment Year 2021-22. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) In Respect Of Target Discount, Consistency Discount & Cash Discount Provided To Spare Parts Dealers: Rs. 55,18,08,851: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Assessing Officer In Disallowing A Sum Of Rs. 55,18,08,851 Under Section 40(A)(Ia), For Non-Deduction Of Tax At Source Under Section 194H, Computed At 30% Of The Following Discounts Provided To Spare Parts Dealers: (A) Target Discount Of Rs. 90,72,94,817; (B) Consistency Discount Of Rs. 72,72,96,107; & (C) Cash Discount Of Rs. 20,47,71,915. In Doing So, The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) Erred In The Following Respects: 2. In Incorrectly Observing That The Appellant Has Paid Commissionto Its Dealers Under The Cover Of Sales Discounts. 3. In Observing The Appellant Is Offering Discounts On Completion Of Periodic Targets Which Is Computed As A Percentage Of Sales Turnover & Therefore Akin To Commission.

Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 40

/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13/03/2025 for assessment year 2021-22. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “Disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) in respect of target discount, consistency discount and cash discount provided to spare parts dealers ... basis of aforesaid view, the AO held that assessee has paid commission to its dealer under the garb of sale discount and disallowed under section 40(a)(ia) and thereby, made the 5 ITA No. 2786/Mum/2025 AY: 2021-22 Bajaj Auto Limited disallowed Rs.55.18 crores i.e. 30% of Rs.183.93 crores