Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 40(a)(i) is Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62), cited in 645 of the 281 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40(a)(i)

Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
314 ITR 62 · 2009 · Supreme Court
645
citing judgments

A provision for expenses, such as warranty, is a deductible liability for income tax purposes if it constitutes a present obligation arising from past events, and a reliable estimate of the amount of obligation is possible.

GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
327 ITR 456 · 2010 · Supreme Court
578
citing judgments

Tax must be deducted at source from payments made to a non-resident under Section 195 only if such payment is chargeable to tax in India. The Assessing Officer bears the onus to establish that the payments made are indeed chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Act.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
375
citing judgments

Income from offshore supply of goods and services is not taxable in India if the entire transaction, including transfer of ownership and payments, occurs outside India.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
345
citing judgments

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

Additionally, in CIT v. A. Raman & Co.
67 ITR 11 · 1968 · Supreme Court
321
citing judgments

A taxpayer can legitimately arrange their commercial affairs to reduce tax liability, as permissible tax planning differs from tax evasion. Only real income is subject to tax, not hypothetical or notional income imputed by the Assessing Officer.

CIT v. Toshoku Ltd.
125 ITR 525 · 1980 · Supreme Court
270
citing judgments

A non-resident commission agent is not chargeable to tax in India on commission income if no business operations are carried out in India. Consequently, no TDS is required under Section 195 on such payments.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
16 Taxmann.com 141 · 2012 · High Court
244
citing judgments

Section 195 requires tax deduction at source on the gross sum paid to a non-resident even if no part of the income is chargeable in India, particularly if no application under Section 195(2) or 195(3) is filed.

Transmission Corporation of Andhra Pradesh v. CIT
239 ITR 587 · 1999 · Supreme Court
243
citing judgments

The Supreme Court lays down principles for deducting tax at source (TDS) under Section 195 on payments to non-residents, including aspects of income deemed taxable in India and the application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreements (DTAAs) under Section 90.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
223
citing judgments

Fees for technical services (FTS) apply only to actual services provided for a fee, not merely the sale of a product with technical input. The term 'technical' refers to applied and industrial science, a definition crucial for classifying income like software sales or roaming charges and determining TDS liability.

Judgments on Section 40(a)(i)

ACIT- 6(1)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. FORUM HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 7531/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri. Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am Acit – 6(1)(2), Mumbai Forum Homes Private Limited Room No. 506, 5Th Floor, Aaykar 1St Floor, Serendipty G Block, Bkc, Bhavan, Mk Road, Churchgate, Vs. Near Ongc Colony, Patthar Nagar, Mumbai – 400020. Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Pan/Gir No. Aaccf1005F (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shriram S : Shri Nayanjyoti Nath (Sr. Ar) Respondent By : 09.03.2026 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 30.03.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: Captioned Appeal By The Revenue Arises Out Of The Order Dated 04.09.2025 Of Learned Addl/Jcit (A) Prayagraj (‘Ld. Addl. Cit(A)’ For Short), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2016-17. 2. The Short Issue Arising For Consideration In The Present Appeal Is, Whether The Payments Made By The Assessee To Two Singapore Based Entities Towards Consultancy & Architectural & Structural Design Are In The Nature Of Fees For Technical Services (Fts) U/S. 91(Vii) Of The Act Read With Article 12(4) Of The India-Singapore Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (Dtaa) & Whether The Alleged Failure On The Part Of The Forum Homes Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Shriram SFor Respondent: 09.03.2026
Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 91

DCIT-CIRCLE 1(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DIEBOLD INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 5508/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5505/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5506/Mum/2025 A.Y: 2011-12 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5507/Mum/2025 Α.Υ: 2012-13 With Ι.Τ.Α. Νο. 5508/Mum/2025 Dcit- Circle 1(3)(1) A.Y: 2013-14 Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020 Vs Diebold India Private Limited Rolta Tower-1, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 39, Central Road, Midc, Marol, Andheri(E), Mumbai-400093 Pan – Aabcd633Ον (Appellant) (Respondent) Co. No. 308/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025) Α.Υ: 2010-11 With Co. No. 309/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5506/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2011-12 With Co. No. 310/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5507/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2012-13 With Co. No. 311/Mum/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 5508/Mum/2025) A.Y: 2013-14 Diebold India Private Limited Assessee By Shri Nishant Thakkar/ Shri Hiten Thakkar Revenue By Shri Krishna Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 09.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09.03.2026 Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue & Cross Objections By The Assessee Challenging The Different Impugned Orders Dt. 03.06.2025, 04.06.2025, 04.06.2025 & 04.06.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act'), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) / Cit(A) For The Assessment Years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14. 2. Since All The Issues Involved In These Appeals & Cross Objections Is Common & Identical & Belongs To One Assessee Therefore, They Have Been Clubbed, Heard Together & Consolidated Order Is Being Passed. Firstly, We Shall Take Ita No. 5505/Mum/2025, A.Y 2010-11 As Lead Case & Facts Narrated Therein.

Section 195Section 250Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

SUPERHOUSE LIMITED,KANPUR vs. CIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-3, DELHI, DELHI

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 356/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos. 356 & 357/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & A.Ys. 2015-16 Superhouse Limited, 150 Feet Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Road, Jajmau, Kanpur-208010 International Taxation-3, Delhi Pan: Aabcs9328K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. Kalrav Mehrotra, Adv Revenue By: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.02.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Cit, (International Taxation)-3, Delhi Passed Under Section 263 Of The Act For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Both Dated 29.03.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit Has Set Aside The Earlier Orders Of The Assessing Officer For Making Of Fresh Orders In Accordance With The Directions Issued By Her. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act & In Doing So, Has Sought To Substitute His Opinion With The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed After Undertaking Extensive & Detailed Consideration Of The Issue By The Ito (Tds). 2. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit Has Erred In Assuming The Jurisdiction Under Section 263 Of The Act Without Appreciating That The Order Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Passed By The Ito (Tds) Was Unerring & In Consonance With The Settled Principles Of Law. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Impugned Order While Premised On An Illegal Assumption Of Jurisdiction, Further Suffers From Non-Application Of Mind Since The Submissions Of The Assessee Have Not Been Considered [As Illustrated Infra]. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. G.C. Srivastava, Adv & Sh. KalravFor Respondent: Sh. R.K. Agarwal, CIT DR
Section 201(1)Section 263Section 90

Showing 120 of 281 · Page 1 of 15

...