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)

ACIT, Chennai vs. Prakash Impex, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1288/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1288/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. Prakash Impex, Income Tax, Vs. 58E, (N/P), Sidco Industrial Estate, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Ambattur, Chennai 600 098. 121, M.G. Road, Chennai – 34. [Pan:Aaafp5388G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Smt. Veni S. Raj, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri T. Banusekar, C.A. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 02.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai Dated 14.03.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of ₹.82,17,946/- Made Under Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Paid To Non-Resident Agents Outside India For The Services Rendered By Them Outside India.

For Appellant: Smt. Veni S. Raj, JCITFor Respondent: Shri T. Banusekar, C.A
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. B & A Multiwall Packaging Ltd., Bhubaneswar

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 59/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Ctk/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) M/S B&A Multiwall Packaging Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, (Formerly B&A Multiwall Bhubaneswar-751007 Packaging Limited), C/O Mr.. Shyam Sundar Patri, Chartered Accountant, 1185/1186, Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar- 751018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 2140 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Ctk/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S B&A Multiwall Packaging Bhubaneswar-751007 Limited, (Formerly B&A Multiwall Packaging Limited), C/O Mr.. Shyam Sundar Patri, Chartered Accountant, 1185/1186, Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar-751018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 2140 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Partha Mukhopadhyay, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 3.11.2014, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts Narrated In Ita No.45/Ctk/2015 In Assessee’S Appeal, For Deciding

For Appellant: Shri Partha Mukhopadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

B & A Multiwall Packaging Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar

Appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 45/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.45/Ctk/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) M/S B&A Multiwall Packaging Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Limited, (Formerly B&A Multiwall Bhubaneswar-751007 Packaging Limited), C/O Mr.. Shyam Sundar Patri, Chartered Accountant, 1185/1186, Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar- 751018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 2140 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.59/Ctk/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Dcit, Circle-1(1), Vs. M/S B&A Multiwall Packaging Bhubaneswar-751007 Limited, (Formerly B&A Multiwall Packaging Limited), C/O Mr.. Shyam Sundar Patri, Chartered Accountant, 1185/1186, Tankapani Road, Bhubaneswar-751018 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 2140 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Partha Mukhopadhyay, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri A.K.Mohapatra, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 02/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against The Order Dated 3.11.2014, Passed By The Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar For The Assessment Year 2008-2009. 2. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Shall Take Into Consideration The Facts Narrated In Ita No.45/Ctk/2015 In Assessee’S Appeal, For Deciding

For Appellant: Shri Partha Mukhopadhyay, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 40

Anand Transport Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 513/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.513/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Anand Transport Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 1, 9Th Street, Dr. Radha Krishnan Vs. Income Tax, Salai, Mylapore, Chennai 600 004. Corporate Circle I(1), [Pan: Aajca2111N] Chennai 600 006. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri B. Koteeswara Rao, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 21.01.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised Two Effective Grounds, Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Made By Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(I) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri B. Koteeswara Rao, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40