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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.35

Section 40(a)(i) falls under section 40 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 35 (Amounts not deductible in certain circumstances) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 35 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 40(a)(i) is Rotork Controls India Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (314 ITR 62), cited in 739 of the 2,009 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
739
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
663
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.

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.
345 ITR 494 · 2012 · High Court
461
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.

Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Ltd. v. DIT
288 ITR 408 · 2007 · Supreme Court
394
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.

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

The mere lawful reorganization of a business transaction does not automatically imply an intent to evade tax, and genuine business adjustments should not be considered suppressive actions without clear evidence of such intent.

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.

Skycell Communications Ltd. v. DCIT
251 ITR 53 · 2001 · High Court
253
citing judgments

Technical services involve human intervention and expertise, not just routine or machine-based operations. Routine customer support and standard facility provision through technology do not constitute technical services under the Act.

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.

Velayudhaswamy Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v. ACIT
340 ITR 477 · 2012 · High Court
213
citing judgments

If unabsorbed depreciation or losses from years prior to the initial assessment year for Section 80-IA claim have already been set off against other income, they cannot be notionally carried forward again to reduce the profits of the eligible unit for computing deduction under Section 80-IA. The notional carry forward provision under Section 80-IA(5) applies only to unabsorbed depreciation or losses that have not yet been absorbed.

Judgments on Section 40(a)(i)

Geeta Rani, Kurukshetra vs. ITO, Ward-1, Kurukshetra

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1779/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 May 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1779/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ms. Geeta Rani Ito Ward 1 बनाम/ Vs. H.No.541, Sector 3, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra Kurukshetra "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Ajopr-7983-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. N.K. Verma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.05.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 30.10.2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer[Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 23.01.2021. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Confirmation Of Disallowance U/S 40(A)(I) For Rs.19,47,236/-. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Confirmed The Disallowance For Want Of Any Representation From Assessee. Aggrieved, The Assessee Is In Further Appeal Before Us. The Only Prayer Of Ld. Ar Is Another Opportunity Of Hearing Which Has Been Opposed By Ld. Sr. Dr. 2. Keeping In Mind The Principles Of Natural Justice, We Accept The Prayer Of Ld. Ar. Accordingly, The Impugned Order Is Set Aside & The Appeal Is Restored Back To Ld. Cit(A) For Fresh Adjudication With A Direction To The Assessee To Plead & Prove Its Case Forthwith. 3. The Appeal Stand Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Order Pronounced On 04Th May, 2026

For Appellant: Sh. N.K. Verma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

ACIT- 6(1)(2), 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