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)

Purulia Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Purulia vs. ACIT, Cir. 3(2), Purulia

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 175/KOL/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.175/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Purulia Central Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .....................................................…..…Appellant Ranchi Road, Purulia-723101. [Pan: Aaajp0148E] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(2), Purulia.…..….............................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri M. Goenka, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 19, 2023 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 08, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.02.2020 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. That The Learned Cit(Appeal) Asansol Erred In Rejecting Application Under Section 154 On The Ground That No Apparent Mistake In Records. 2. That Mistake Of Law Is Mistake Rectifiable As Per Decision Of The Honourable Supreme Court In The Case M. K. Venkatarchram Vs Bombay Dying & Mgg Co Ltd. 1958 Itr 143 (Sc) 3. That The Finance Bill No. (2) 2014 Reduced The Disallowance Of Expenditure Where No Tds Has Been Deducted To 30% Instead Of 100% & Effective From Assessment Year 2015-16

Section 154Section 250Section 40

A.C.Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. Ltd., Siliguri vs. D.C.I.T., Cir-1, Kolkata, Siliguri

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2469/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Girish Agrawal, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2469/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 A.C. Paul Agricultural Co. Pvt. D.C.I.T., Cir-I, Siliguri Ltd. Vs ‘Arjun Bhawan’ 177, Hill Cart Road Siliguri Darjeeling - 734001 [Pan : Aacca5650M] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19/01/2023 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajpal Yadav: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Siliguri, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/09/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Before Taking Cognizance Of The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee In Seriatim, We Deem It Proper To Take Note Of The Brief Background. The Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Tea Plantation & Manufacturing Of Tea. It Has Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2013 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.96,04,272/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment & A Notice U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Was Issued & Served Upon The Assessee. The Ld. Assessing Officer Has Passed Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 18/03/2016. The Assessing Officer Has Made Certain

For Appellant: ShriFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, Addl. CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 250Section 37Section 40Section 40a