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)

C.Kamaraj, Chennai vs. JCIT, Trichy

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2989/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1867/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri C. Kamaraj Income Tax, Circle – Iv, Prop. Rajashree Mines & No.44, Williams Road, Minerals & Rajashree Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001 Transports, Nataraja Medicals Upstairs, V. Kaikatti, Thellur Post, Ariyalur – 621 707. [Pan Ajwpk 6009L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2989/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri C. Kamaraj Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Rajashree Mines & Income Tax, Minerals & Rajashree Circle – Iv, Transports, No.44, Williams Road, Nataraja Medicals Upstairs, Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001 V. Kaikatti, Thellur Post, Ariyalur – 621 707 [Pan Ajwpk 6009L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr. Pavitran Kumar,Jcit Assessee By : Mr. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019

For Appellant: Mr. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Pavitran Kumar,JCIT
Section 194Section 37Section 40Section 40A(3)

DCIT, Trichy vs. C.Kamaraj, Ariyalur

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1867/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri S.Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1867/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Shri C. Kamaraj Income Tax, Circle – Iv, Prop. Rajashree Mines & No.44, Williams Road, Minerals & Rajashree Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001 Transports, Nataraja Medicals Upstairs, V. Kaikatti, Thellur Post, Ariyalur – 621 707. [Pan Ajwpk 6009L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2989/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri C. Kamaraj Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Prop. Rajashree Mines & Income Tax, Minerals & Rajashree Circle – Iv, Transports, No.44, Williams Road, Nataraja Medicals Upstairs, Cantonment, Trichy – 620 001 V. Kaikatti, Thellur Post, Ariyalur – 621 707 [Pan Ajwpk 6009L ] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Department By : Mr. Pavitran Kumar,Jcit Assessee By : Mr. A.S. Sriraman, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 18.09.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019

For Appellant: Mr. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mr. Pavitran Kumar,JCIT
Section 194Section 37Section 40Section 40A(3)

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16 (1), Mumbai vs. United Home Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4321/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Acit-16(1), M/S United Home Entertainment Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Marg, 4Th Floor, Peninsula Tower 1, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/S United Home Entertainment The Asst.Cit-16(1), Pvt. Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Bldg. No. 14, Solitaire, Mumbai - 400020 Corporate Park, Vs. Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (Ars) Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Order Dated 12.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (For Short ‘The Cit (A)’), Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 37Section 40

United Home Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 16 (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4287/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Nov 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 The Acit-16(1), M/S United Home Entertainment Room No. 439, Aayakar Bhavan, Pvt. Ltd., M.K. Marg, 4Th Floor, Peninsula Tower 1, Mumbai - 20 Vs. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai - 400013 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2014-2015 M/S United Home Entertainment The Asst.Cit-16(1), Pvt. Ltd., Aaykar Bhavan, 3Rd Floor, Bldg. No. 14, Solitaire, Mumbai - 400020 Corporate Park, Vs. Guru Hargovindji Marg, Chakala, Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 Pan: Aaacu6668D (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (Dr) Assessee By : Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (Ars) Date Of Hearing: 08/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2019 O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Respectively, Against The Order Dated 12.04.2018 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai (For Short ‘The Cit (A)’), Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2014-15, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly Assessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Naresh Kumar/Jimit Kothari (ARs)For Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra (DR)
Section 115JSection 143Section 37Section 40