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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.35

Section 40(a)(ia) 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)(ia) is S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (288 ITR 1), cited in 1,484 of the 7,300 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
1,484
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
1,344
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.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
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.

Bharat Earth Movers v. CIT
245 ITR 428 · 2000 · Supreme Court
901
citing judgments

A business liability that has definitely arisen in an accounting year is deductible even if it needs to be quantified and discharged later, as long as its incurring is certain and can be reasonably estimated.

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.

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

For claiming deduction for bad debts 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 accounts, and it is not necessary to prove that the debt has actually become irrecoverable.

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.

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.

Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
293 ITR 226 · 2007 · Supreme Court
576
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.

CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
410 ITR 466 · 2019 · Supreme Court
501
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.

Judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

Windsor Shelters, Pune vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 5, Pune

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

ITA 949/PUN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Windsor Shelters, Acit, Circle-5, Sr.No. 47/30, Aranyeshwar Sant Pune Nagar Chowk, Vs. Taware Colony, Pune-411009 Pan : Abcfs7010D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Nisha Lahoti Department By : Ms. Bhavya. I.V. – Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2026 O R D E R Per Astha Chandra, J.M.: The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30-12-2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”], U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”), Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2017-18. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Registered Partnership Firm & Engaged In The Business Of Promoter, Builder & Developer. For The Ay. 2017-18, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 31-10-2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 1,96,73,750/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass. Accordingly Statutory Notices U/S. 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Along With Questionnaire Were Issued & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. In Response Thereto The Assessee Submitted Its Reply & After Considering The Same, The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Vide His Order Dt. 24-12-2019 At An Assessed Income Of 2 Rs.2,97,85,368/- By Computing The Income Of The Assessee In The Following Manner:

For Appellant: Ms. Nisha LahotiFor Respondent: Ms. Bhavya. I.V. – Jt.CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

JCIT, Trichy vs. The Tiruchirapalli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Trichy

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed with the above observations

ITA 1499/CHNY/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jul 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Honourable George George K. & Shri Gagan Goyalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1499/Chny/2026 ननिाजरण वर्ज /Assessment Years: 2020-21 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, V. The Tiruchirappalli District Circle-1, Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Trichy. No.324, Fort Station Road Trichy, Tiruchirappalli, Tamil Nadu – 620 002. [Pan: Aaaat5036C] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate, Ld. Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Mr. Shiva Srinivas, Cit, Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Gagan Goyal, Am: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), / Nfac, (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Delhi Dated 22.01.2026 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter Referred As The ‘Ay’) 2020-21. Grounds Of Appeal (1) The Order Of The Ld. Cit (A) Is Opposed To Law On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case. (2) The Ld. Cit (A) Failed To Consider The Provision Of Clause (A) Of Section 251(1) Of The Act In Which Assessment Made U/S 144 Alone Can Be Set-Aside & Refer Back To The Assessing Officer For Making Fresh Assessment. (3) The Ld. Cit (A) Erred By Setting Aside & Referring Back To The Assessing Officer In The Instant Case Which Was Made U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Mr. N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Shiva Srinivas, CIT, Ld. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 201Section 251(1)Section 40