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
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)

Sangita Hiren Trivedi, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO WD 22(3)(4), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assesses is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7055/MUM/2014[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.7055/Mum/2014 (ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Mrs.Sangita Hiren Trivedi, बनधम/ The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Vrinda, 1St Floor, Society, 22(3)(4), Vs. Tower No.6, 3Rd Floor, Sector No.10-A, Vashi, Navi Mumbai-400703 Vashi Railway Station Complex, Vashi Navi Mumbai-400703 स्थधयी ऱेखध सं./ Pan : Ahdpt1745R अपीऱार्थी ओर से / Assessee By Shri M S Mathuria प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Assessee By Shri Vinod Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16.6.2016 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.6.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, A. M: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Order Dated 8/9/2014 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)-33, Mumbai, For Assessment Year 2012-13 By Which The Assessee Is Challenging The Penalty Levied U/S 221(1) By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld.Cit(A)-33, Mumbai. 2. Only Ground Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is With Respect To The Confirmation Of Penalty Of Rs.2,30,760/- By The Ld. Cit(A) As Levied By The Ao U/S 221(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2 7055/Mum/2014

Section 140A(3)Section 221(1)