Section 140A(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.266

Section 140A(3) falls under section 140A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 266 (Self-assessment) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 266 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 140A(3) is Micro Ink Ltd. v. ACIT (157 ITD 132), cited in 61 of the 54 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 140A(3)

Micro Ink Ltd. v. ACIT
157 ITD 132 · 2016 · ITAT
61
citing judgments

Issuance of corporate guarantees does not constitute an international transaction under section 92B, particularly for guarantees provided before the 2012 amendment. Such guarantees are considered shareholder activities or quasi-capital and do not impact enterprise profits, income, losses, or assets.

Bharti Airtel Limited v. ACIT
161 TTJ 428 · 2014 · ITAT
28
citing judgments

Corporate guarantees cannot be considered international transactions for the purposes of Section 92B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Marico Ltd. v. ACIT
70 Taxmann.com 214 · 2016 · ITAT
20
citing judgments

Giving corporate guarantee for loans to associated enterprises is not an international transaction and amendments to Section 92B are not retrospective.

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. DCIT
117 Taxmann.com 518 · 2020 · High Court
20
citing judgments

When calculating disallowances under the third limb of Rule 8D(2), only investments that have actually yielded exempt income in the current year should be considered. If the calculated disallowance is lower than the suo motu disallowance, the suo motu disallowance should be adopted.

M/s. Bharti Airtel Limited v. Addl. CIT
64 SOT 50 · 2014 · ITAT
16
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee is not considered an international transaction under section 92B of the Income-tax Act, particularly when considering the legislative amendment by the Finance Act, 2012.

IR 1973 SC 2758: Baidya Nath Sharma Vs CWT (1983) 140 ITR 801(Gau): Mool Chand Mahesh Chand v. CIT
143 ITR 120 · 1983 · High Court
12
citing judgments

A decision of a High Court is binding precedent even if an appeal or special leave petition is pending, unless the operation of the judgment has been stayed or reversed. This principle applies to decisions of non-jurisdictional High Courts and is followed by tribunals.

Electrosteel Casting Ltd. v. DCIT
125 Taxmann.com 308 · 2021 · ITAT
12
citing judgments

The Arm's Length Price (ALP) of interest charged on a foreign currency loan and on delayed receivables from an associated enterprise (AE) is a key issue in transfer pricing. This case considered the determination of ALP for such transactions involving AEs.

Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. ADIT (
121 Taxmann.com 190 · 2020 · Reported
10
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments are estimations. When estimating corporate guarantee commission, it should be restricted to 0.5% if supported by data analysis, against higher figures computed by the Assessing Officer/Transfer Pricing Officer.

Trib.); Micromax Informatics Ltd. v. DCIT
140 Taxmann.com 576 · 2022 · Reported
7
citing judgments
Yucca Finvest (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT
101 ITD 403 · 2006 · ITAT
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 140A(3)

Shakaldev Mishra, Bettiah vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Muzaffarprur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above”

ITA 470/PAT/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna25 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 140A(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

ACIT Circle 54(1), New Delhi vs. Swadesh Kumar Mishra, Gurgaon

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee i

ITA 6043/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S. (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144(1)Section 145(3)Section 24Section 40Section 40A(3)

First Global Stockbroking Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1951/MUM/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Satish Mody
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

First Global Stock Broking Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1950/MUM/2024[201718]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Satish Mody
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

First Global Stockbroking Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 4 (1) (1), Aayekar Bhavan

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1786/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh ()

For Respondent: Mr. Satish Mody
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 221Section 221(1)

Hi-Tech Estates and Promoters Private Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT Circle 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 176/CTK/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Manish Agarwal Manish Agarwalassessment Year : 2015-16 Hi-Tech Tech Estates Estates & And Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-1(2) Promoters Promoters Pvt Pvt Ltd., Ltd., Plot Plot Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar No.A/103, No.A/103, Saheed Saheed Nagar, Nagar, Bhubaneswar. Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No Pan/Gir No.Aaach 9591 G (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Abhishek Ojha, Ca Abhishek Ojha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Shri Sanjay Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/08 8/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/0 /08/2024 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Ojha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT
Section 221(1)Section 234A

Climax Overseas Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. Addi. CIT Special Range-2, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 38/DEL/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M Balaganesh[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Climax Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Vs Addl.Cit, Plot No.152, Sec-3, Special Range-2, Imt Manesar, Gurgaon, Gurgaon Haryana-122050. Pan-Aabcc5665R Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Sapna Bhatia, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 06.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17.04.2023 Order Per Kul Bharat, Jm : The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2018- 19 Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)-2, New Delhi Dated 04.02.2020. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

Section 140A(3)Section 142(1)Section 221

Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 42/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Orissa Ltd. Janapath, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 29 /03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 /03/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

M/S. Gridco Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 148/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Mar 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: S/Shri George Mathan & Arun Khodpiaassessment Year : 2014-15 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S. Grid Corporation Of Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Orissa Ltd. Janapath, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar. Pan/Gir No.Aabcg 5398 P (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, Ars Revenue By : Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. Cit (Osd) Date Of Hearing : 29 /03/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 29 /03/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: S/Shri Ved Jain/P.V.Rao, ARsFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Gautam, Pr. CIT (OSD)
Section 10BSection 10B(8)Section 139(1)Section 139(3)Section 139(5)Section 80

Sri Ramana Heavy Engineering Pvt Ltd, Chennai vs. ACIT Corporate Circle-6(4), Chennai

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

ITA 1613/CHNY/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1613/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 M/S. Sri Ramana Heavy Engineering P. The Assistant Commissioner Of Ltd., Ap-769, 10Th Sector, 59Th Street, Vs. Income Tax, Kk Nagar, Chennai 600 078. Corporate Circle 6(4), [Pan:Aajcs3174P] Chennai. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri M. Karunakaran, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri G. Johnson, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 06.04.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.05.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao,: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 16, Chennai, Dated 19.02.2019 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenging The Appellate Order Of Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Under Section 221(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Shri M. Karunakaran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Johnson, Addl. CIT
Section 140A(3)Section 221(1)

Sama Ramachandra Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 165/HYD/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad16 Dec 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year: 2006-07 Sama Ramachandra Reddy, Vs. The Dcit, Hyderabad. Central Circle – 2, Pan : Auaps0609R Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao Revenue By: Shri Subbaraju Penmetsa Date Of Hearing: 14/12/2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 16/12/2021 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M. This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y 2006-07 Arises From The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Hyderabad’S Order Dated 15.11.2016, In Case No.0598/Cit(A)-1/Hyd/2014- 15/2017-18, Involving Proceedings Under Section 221(1) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, “The Act”).

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan RaoFor Respondent: Shri Subbaraju Penmetsa
Section 140A(3)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 221(2)Section 271(1)(c)

Dy CIT CC 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Karanja Terminal and Logistics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6898/MUM/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, D.R
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

Dy CIT CC 6 (3), Mumbai vs. M/S Karanja Terminal and Logistics Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

The appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6897/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Oct 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya () & Shri Ravish Sood () Ita Nos.6897 & 6898/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Mihir Naniwadekar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, D.R
Section 140A(3)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)

Pallavi Sood, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result,appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1746/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: Shri Satyen Sethi, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Atigu Ahmed, Sr. DR
Section 140(3)Section 140ASection 140A(3)Section 143(3)Section 221Section 221(1)Section 234B

Shreyas Land Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Panvel

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

ITA 973/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Alok Malviya
Section 207Section 208Section 211Section 221

Sama Ramachandra Reddy, Hyderabad vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, as above”

ITA 164/HYD/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jun 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Deviassessment Year: 2005-06

For Appellant: Sri P. Murali Mohan Rao, ARFor Respondent: Sri Kiran Katta, DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 221Section 221(1)

R.Vijayakumar, Cochin vs. DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 502/COCH/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Oct 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 140A(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)

R.Vijayakumar, Cochin vs. DCIT, Ernakulam

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 501/COCH/2019[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 Oct 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR
Section 140A(3)Section 153ASection 221(1)

Raj Oil Mills Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT CC 34, Mumbai

ITA 2548/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jun 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri G. Manjunatha, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2548/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2547/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2549/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 700/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) & आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 699/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2006-07) In The Matter Of;

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. D. G. Pansari, DR
Section 221

M/S. Valley Iron & Steel Co. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4788/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Hrishikesh, CIT(DR)
Section 115JSection 140Section 140ASection 140A(1)Section 140A(3)Section 234BSection 249Section 249(4)