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)

Kendrapada Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Kendrapada vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 376/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack15 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.376/Ctk/2016 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Kendrapara Urban Co-Operative Vs Acit, Cir-1(2), Cuttack Bank Ltd., College Square, Tinimuhani, Kendrapara Pan No. :Aaatk 8347 E (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.C.Sethi, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 15/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 27.03.2015, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.546/2011-12 For The Assessment Year 2011-2012. 2. This Appeal Had Originally Been Disposed Off By The Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 16.03.2020, Wherein It Was Held That The Amendment To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act By The Finance Act (No.2) Act, 2014 Was Retrospective In Operation & The Disallowance On Account Of The Non-Deduction Of Tds Was Liable To Be Restricted To 30% As Against 100% Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. The Revenue Had Filed A Miscellaneous Application Bearing M.A.No.39/Ctk/2021, Wherein The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Shree Choudhary Transport Company (2020) 426 Itr 289

For Appellant: Shri P.C.Sethi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 40

Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 296/CTK/2018[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack14 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.296/Ctk/2018 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Om Sri Nilamadhab Builders (P) Vs Ito, Ward-1(3), Bhubaneswar Ltd., Plot No.288, Bapuji Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751009 Pan No. :Aabco 2822 N (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri S.K.Agrawalla, Ca राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 14/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 14/11/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Dated 16.05.2018, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0330/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. This Appeal Had Originally Been Disposed Off By The Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal Vide Order Dated 26.11.2019, Wherein It Was Held That The Amendment To Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act By The Finance Act (No.2) Act, 2014 Was Retrospective In Operation & The Disallowance On Account Of The Non-Deduction Of Tds Was Liable To Be Restricted To 30% As Against 100 Made By The Ao & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A). 3. The Revenue Had Filed A Miscellaneous Application Bearing M.A.No.06/Ctk/2020, Wherein The Decision Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Shree Choudhary Transport Company (2020) 426 Itr 289

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agrawalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR
Section 40

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - Agartala, Agartala vs. Kalika Jewellers, Agartala

In the result, appeal of the revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 85/GTY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Gty/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Asstt. Commissioner Of Income M/S. Kalika Jewellers Tax, Circle-Agartala Vs H.G.B. Road Agartala Tripura (W) - 799001 [Pan: Aafj5678K] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanjay Modi, Fca Revenue By : Shri N.T. Sherpa, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - Shillong, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 03/06/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2010-11, On The Following Grounds:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By A.O. Of Rs.8,81,708/- On Account Of Unexplained Expenditure. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.4,02,36,806/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Undisclosed Stock. 3. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.16,20,750/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Making Charges U/S 40(A)(Ia). 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.1,34,640/- & Rs.83,385/- Made By A.O. On Account Of Advertisement Expense U/S 40(A)(Ia).” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In Jewellery Business. Income Of Rs.56,80,854/- Was Declared In The Return Filed On 23/09/2010. The Case Was Manually Selected For Scrutiny Followed By Service Of Notice U/S 143(2) & 143(1) Of The Act. The Ld. Assessing Officer Called For Various

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Modi, FCAFor Respondent: Shri N.T. Sherpa, JCIT
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40

M/S Bina Metal Way (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle-1(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2615/KOL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Nov 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 2615/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Bina Metal Way (P) Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income, Ah-138, Salt Lake Vs Circle – 1(2), Kolkata Sector-Ii Kolkata - 700091 Pan : Aabcb1511D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manish Tiwari, Fca Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/09/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Rajesh Kumar: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 5, Kolkata (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 01/10/2019, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act’), For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Issue Raised In Ground No. 1 Is Against The Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.10,19,235/- By The Ld. Cit(A) As Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Pf & Esi Without Appreciating The Fact That The Payment Has Been Already Made Before The Due Date Of Filing Of Return.

For Appellant: Shri Manish Tiwari, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 194ASection 250Section 37Section 40