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)

International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management, Cuttack vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITITA 1090/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Sh. Ramit Kochar & Sh. Raj Kumar Chauhanit(It)A No. 1090/Del/2025 :Asstt. Year: 2018-19 International Center For Living Vs Acit, Aquatic Resources Management, Circle Intl. Tax-(2)(1), Worldfish Project Campus Of Civic Centre, Directorate Of Animal Husbandry New Delhi-110002 Mangalabag, Odisha-751001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaajt2597D Assessee By: Sh. Prakash Sinha, Adv. & Sh. Ayush Kumar, Adv. Revenue By: Sh. M. S. Nethrapal, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 17.04.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 27.04.2026 Order Per Raj Kumar Chauhan: This Appeal Is Filed By The Appellant/Assessee Against The Assessment Order Dated 30.01.2025 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), In Pursuance To The Direction Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, New Delhi (Ld. Drp) U/S 144C(5) Of The Act Dated 13.12.2024 Wherein The Addition Made In The Draft Assessment Order Dated 27.03.2024 Were Confirmed On Account Of Disallowance Of Excessive & Unreasonable Payment Made To The Head Office To The Tune Of Rs.27,77,193/- Along With Addition Of Income On Account Of Head Office To The Tune Of Rs.1,07,08,585/-.

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash Sinha, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. M. S. Nethrapal, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 201Section 7

Shubham Constructions, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 30, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee has been allowed

ITA 2647/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Apr 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shrirajesh Kumar & Shripradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Shubham Constructions……………..………………………………...Appellant 36/1A, Garcha Road, 4Th Floor Gariahat, Kolkata West Bengal-700019 [Pan No. Abdfs8363A] Vs. Dcit, Circle 30, Kolkata………………....…………………….…….Respondent Appearances By: Shri C.M Roy,Ca,Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shris.B. Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr,Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing :March24, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing Theorder : April 21,2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.09.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Assessee Filed Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14, Declaring Total Income At Rs.67,00,710/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued & In Response To The Notices, The Ld. Ar Contested The Proceedings & Furnished Some Details & Information But As Per The Assessment Officer, The Assessee Failed To Produce The Books Of Accounts Mentioned In The Audit Report & He Remained Evasive & Non-Cooperative In Furnishing Of The Information In Respect Of Unsecured Loans, Capital Introduction, Sundry Creditors Shubham Constructions & Amounts Debited Into The P & L A/C. As A Result Of Which, The Assessing Officer Made Following Additions: -

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 40