← All Phrases

“section 40A(2)(b)”

DisallowancesSection 40A(2)(b)Section 40A(2)(b)622 judgments

The decision most relied on for section 40A(2)(b) is CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377), cited in 417 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on section 40A(2)(b)

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.

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.

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT
35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT
322
citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

CIT v. Walchand & Co.
65 ITR 381 · 1967 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

The necessity and reasonableness of business expenditure, including the utilization of borrowed funds, must be judged from the perspective of a businessman based on commercial expediency, and cannot be dictated by revenue authorities. The onus is on the assessee to demonstrate the business purpose and commercial expediency.

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT
60 ITR 52 · 1966 · Supreme Court
247
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
340 ITR 14 · 2012 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court
185
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.
298 ITR 194 · 2008 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

Interest expenditure incurred for acquiring capital assets, even if capitalized in the books, is deductible if for the purpose of business. Section 36(1)(iii) is a self-contained code regarding such deductions.

Judgments citing section 40A(2)(b)

Western India Cashew Company Private Limited, R. P. Towers vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Coimbatore

ITA 859/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Sept 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.859/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Western India Cashew Company The Principal Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax, No.88, Rp Towers, Coimbatore - 1. Coimbatore Road, Pollachi - 642 002. [Pan: Aaacw 3202B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri G. Surendarnath Rao, C.A प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per S.R. Raghunatha, A.M : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Coimbatore-1 (Hereinafter “Pcit”] In Din & Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2023- 24/1060503232(1), Dated 05.02.2024. The Assessment Was Framed By The Assessing Officer For The Assessment Year 2020-21 U/S.143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The 'Act'), Vide Order Dated 06.09.2022.

For Appellant: Shri G. Surendarnath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

under the said section is not satisfied (b)Various cases laws in support of its claim that there had been no violation of section 40A(2)(b) as alleged in the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and supporting documents in respect of their claims. Before deciding