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

The decision most relied on for Section 40(a)(ia) is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1), cited in 1,449 of the 1,061 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia)

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,449
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.
319 ITR 306 · 2009 · Supreme Court
1,286
citing judgments

A proviso inserted into a section to remedy unintended consequences, make the section workable, or supply an obvious omission must be read retrospectively in operation to give effect to the section as a whole.

Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT
245 ITR 428 · 2000 · Supreme Court
891
citing judgments
CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
843
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

TRF Ltd. v. CIT
323 ITR 397 · 2010 · Supreme Court
714
citing judgments

For a bad debt claim under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act, it is sufficient for the assessee to write off the debt as irrecoverable in its books of accounts; proof that the debt has actually become irrecoverable is not required after the amendment to the section.

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.

Tuticorin Alkali Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd. v. CIT
227 ITR 172 · 1997 · Supreme Court
621
citing judgments

Interest income earned on deposits, particularly before the commencement of business operations or as a requirement for business licensing, is taxable as "income from other sources" under Section 56, and cannot be treated as business income or set off against interest on borrowed funds.

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.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
496
citing judgments

When mixed funds are available, interest-free advances are presumed to be made from the assessee's own interest-free funds, preventing disallowance of interest expenditure under section 36(1)(iii). This principle also applies to section 14A disallowance, where interest expenditure is not disallowed if surplus funds are available and no direct nexus is established with borrowed funds for investments earning exempt income.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
484
citing judgments

The deductor cannot be treated as an assessee-in-default under Section 201(1) if the deductee has already paid the tax or offered the impugned receipts in their return of income. However, interest under Section 201(1A) for delayed deposit of tax can still be levied up to the date of filing of the return of income by the deductee.

Judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

CHOLAN TOURS PVT. LTD.,TRICHY vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), TRICHY

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

ITA 2277/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2277/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Cholan Tours Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 4, Annai Avenue, Vasantha Nagar Ward 1(1), Extension, Kollidakarai, Srirangam, Trichy. Trichy 620 006. [Pan: Aaecc2485L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.A. (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. C. Vatchala, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Ground No. 1(1, A, B & C) Raised By The Assessee In Challenging The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Disallowance Made Under Section 36(10(Va) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] With Reference To The Employees’ Contribution To Provident Fund.

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Ramakrishnan, C.A. (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. C. Vatchala, CIT
Section 10Section 36Section 40

Showing 120 of 1,061 · Page 1 of 54

...