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)

Metal Tube and Rolling Milss, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Miumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as under:

ITA 3115/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & & M/S. Metal Tube & Income Tax Officer- Rolling Mills 24(2)(1) 1St Floor, Metal Tube, Vs. Room No. 618, Marol Maroshi Road, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (East), Mumbai Lalgaug, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400059 Maharashtra- 400012 Pan/Gir No. Aaefm9353N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Satish Modi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 22.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"]Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For Assessment Years 2010–11, 2011–12 & 2014–15. Since Common Issues Are Involved, These Appeals Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated & Common Order. It Is Further Noted That These Matters Are Recalled Appeals Pursuant To The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 05.12.2025 Passed In M.A. Nos. 60, 61 & 62/Mum/2025, Whereby The Earlier Ex-Parte Consolidated Order Dated 29.10.2024 Was Recalled & The Appeals Were Restored For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Metal Tube and Rolling Mills, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 24(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are disposed of as under:

ITA 3114/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar & & M/S. Metal Tube & Income Tax Officer- Rolling Mills 24(2)(1) 1St Floor, Metal Tube, Vs. Room No. 618, Marol Maroshi Road, Piramal Chambers, Andheri (East), Mumbai Lalgaug, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400059 Maharashtra- 400012 Pan/Gir No. Aaefm9353N (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Mr. Satish Modi, Adv. Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing 22.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.05.2026 आदेश / Order Per Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar, Am: These Are Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Against The Respective Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"]Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"] For Assessment Years 2010–11, 2011–12 & 2014–15. Since Common Issues Are Involved, These Appeals Are Being Disposed Of By Way Of This Consolidated & Common Order. It Is Further Noted That These Matters Are Recalled Appeals Pursuant To The Order Of The Tribunal Dated 05.12.2025 Passed In M.A. Nos. 60, 61 & 62/Mum/2025, Whereby The Earlier Ex-Parte Consolidated Order Dated 29.10.2024 Was Recalled & The Appeals Were Restored For Fresh Adjudication.

Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

M/S. Mukti Construction, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Central Cirlcle 6(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1496/MUM/2026[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2023-24 M/S. Mukti Construction, Dcit, Central Circle-6(4), A/105, Utsav Plaza, 453, 4Th Floor, Building No. 7, Vs. Kautilya Bhavan, Madhuban Township Chs, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Vasai (E), Bkc, Bandra East, Maharashtra-401208. Mumbai-400051. Pan : Abmfm6718N (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Hitesh Jain For Revenue : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29-04-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-04-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-54, Mumbai [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 15-12-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2023-24. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 27-02-2025, Wherein The Ao Has Brought To Tax An Amount Of Rs. 4,08,71,000/- As Un-Explained Credit U/S. 69A Of The Act Towards Accommodation Entries & An Amount Of Rs. 80,21,190/- By Way Of 2 Disallowance Of Expenditure U/S. 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act & The Assessed Income Was Determined At Rs. 5,28,96,990/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 40,04,800/-. The Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Hitesh JainFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 40Section 69A