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)

Prontos Private Limited, Parwanoo vs. ITO, Ward Parwanoo, Parwanoo

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1303/CHANDI/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh02 Jun 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1303/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S Prontos Private Limited Ito Ward Plot No. 63 – 66, Sector – 5 Parwanoo बनाम/ Vs. Distt. – Solan, Parwanoo Himachal Pradesh - 173220 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaccp-8135-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. M.L. Mutneja (Ca) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20-05-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 02-06-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2013-14 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22.08.2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 29.03.2022. The Grievance Of The Assessee Is Two Folds I.E., (I) Confirmation Of Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) For Rs.1,26,708/-; (Ii)

For Appellant: Sh. M.L. Mutneja (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 147Section 194JSection 40

Naresh Kumar Jain, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-5(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1558/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Jun 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.1558/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Naresh Kumar Jain, The Income Tax Officer, No.33, Venkaiyer Street, Vs. Non-Corp Ward-5(2), Kondithope, Chennai. Chennai – 600 079. [Pan: Aappn-0443-B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Anandd Babunath, Fca प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. D. Balachandar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.05.2026 घोर्णा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02.06.2026 आदेश/ O R D E R Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Dated 21.08.2023, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal), Nfac, Delhi (In Short “Ld.Cit(A)”) For The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2013-14 Against The Reassessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Passed By The Ao, Dated 31.03.2016. 2. At The Threshold, We Observe That There Is A Delay Of 576 Days In The Filing Of The Present Appeal By The Assessee. The Assessee Has Furnished An Affidavit Explaining That The Assessee Has Not Regularly Checked The E-Mail

For Appellant: Mr. Anandd Babunath, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. D. Balachandar, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 40a