← 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)

ACIT, Coporate Circle 3(1), Chennai vs. J-Ark Logistics Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Taewoong Logistics Pvt Ltd.), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and the CO filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 17/CHNY/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jan 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.17/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 & C.O. No. 116/Chny/2018 [In Ita No. 17/Chny/2018] The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. J-Ark Logistics (P) Ltd., Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Taewoong Corporate Circle 3(1), Logistics (P) Ltd),South Side, Eastern Chennai. Wing, 7Th Floor, Kattima Isana Building, 497 & 498, Poonamalle High Road, Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 106. [Pan: Aadct0692D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Raghunathan, Advocate & Shri S. Sankara Narayanan, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.01.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10.01.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.09.2017 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Before Adverting To The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Revenue, We Note That The Issue Raised In This Appeal Has To Be Decided In Terms Of The Order Dated 05.08.2024 Of Special Bench In Assessee’S Own Case.

For Appellant: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri S. Raghunathan, Advocate &
Section 194CSection 40

were subjected to section 194C of the Act and consequently whether such deduction of tax on such payments would result in inviting disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act as a principal and not as an intermediary. 6 I.T.A. No.17/Chny/18 & C.O. No. 116/Chny/18 8. During the course

Greenpece Luxury Homes LLP, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward-22(1), Chennai

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

ITA 163/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.163/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Greenpeace Luxury Homes Llp, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 41, Vandalur Kelambakkam Road, Non Corporate Ward 22(1), Pudhupakkam, Kancheepuram, Tambaram. Tamil Nadu 603 103. [Pan: Aalfg6842P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 27.11.2024 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.01.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Ground No. 1 Raised By The Assessee Is General In Nature & Requires No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 40Section 43B

I.T.A. No.163/Chny/24 7. Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee in challenging the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 8. The Assessing Officer found from the audit report that no TDS was deducted on interest payment. The Assessing