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)

M/S. Altair Engineering India (Private) Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1307/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B R Baskaranassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Altair Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Dcit, Prestige Trade Tower, Circle – 1(1)(1), Municipal No.46, First Floor, Bengaluru. Palace Road, Municipal Ward No.77, Sampangiramanagar, Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan: Aabca 1860 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. M. V. Gowtham, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Pradeep Kumar, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2021 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.05.2019 Of Cit(A)-1, Bangalore, Relating To Ay 2009-10. 2. The Facts Arising To This Aforesaid Appeal Are That The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Software Product Development & Related Services. In The Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That The Assessee Debited A Sum Of Rs.17,11,41,734/- Towards Software Purchases. The Assessee Submitted Before The Ao That It Was Trading In Software Owned By Altair Inc., Which Owns The Intellectual Property (Ip) Rights As Well The Remarketing Rights Of The Computer Software & Related Materials. Altair India Has Been Granted Page 2 Of 6 Distribution Rights Under A Specific Distribution Agreement For Marketing & Distributing This Software In India & A Few Other Countries. These Software Procurements Were Against Back To Back Orders From End Customers. In Short, It Was Submitted That The Income Of The Assessee Was Only In The Nature Of A Trading Profit Obtained By The Assessee & Not Any Revenue In Nature Of Fee. Some Of The Software Was Also In Nature Of Maintenance Renewal. The Assessee Submitted That It Followed The Accounting Treatment As Per India Gaap. The Assessee Also Maintained That There Was No Need To Deduct Tax On Such Software Purchases.

For Appellant: Shri. M. V. Gowtham, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pradeep Kumar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40