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)

M/S Sangita Construction Co., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-26(1), Kolkata

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 354/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2010-11 M/S Sangita V/S. Income Tax Officer, Construction Co. Pujali Ward-26(1), Ayakar Budge Budge, Bhawan Dakshin 2, Kolkata-700138 Gariahat Road (South), [Pa No.Aavfs 7245 L] Kolkata-68 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A.K. Tibrwal, Fca अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sandeep Lakra, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 22-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2010-11 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7 Kolkata’S Order Dated 14.12.2015, Passed In Case No.262Cita-7R/Range-26/14-15, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3)/144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee’S First Substantive Ground Seeks To Challenge Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Disallowing / Adding Its Transport Charges Of ₹28,12,459/- On Account Of Non-Deduction Of Tds. The Cit(A)’S Appeal Discussion Qua The Instant Issue Reads As Under:- “2.0 Ground No.2 Is Related To The Addition Of Rs.28,12,459/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer Found That The Appellant Made Purchases Of Rs.16,60,901/- From Mr. Dinesh Gupta & Rs.11,51,558/- From M/S S. P Enterprise. The Enquiries Conducted By The A.O Revealed That The M/S S.P Enterprise Was Found To Be Non-Existent. Summons

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 40

ITO, Ward 14(2), Kolkata vs. M/S B.B.C. Project Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1669/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2009-10 Income Tax Officer V/S. M/S B.B.C. Project Services Ward-14(2), 10Th Floor, Pvt Ltd., 90B, S.P. R.No. 3 Aayakar Mukherjee Road, Poorva, 110, Shanti Kolkata-26 Pally, Kolkata-107 [Pan No.Aacb 3671 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri A.K. Singh, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant None ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 22-11-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 30-11-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4 Kolkata’S Order Dated 06.06.2016, Passed In Case No.190/Cit(A)-4/Ward-10(2)/Kol/14-15, In Proceedings U/S. 144/264 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceed Ex Parte. 2. The Revenue Raises Two Substantive Grounds In Its Instant Appeal. Its Former Grievance Pleads That Cit(A) Has Erred In Estimating Assessee’S Income @ 0.4% Of The Total Turnover Of ₹48,47,08,894/- Without Appreciating The Relevant Facts. It Then Seeks To Revive Sec. 40(A)(Ia) Disallowance Of ₹6,64,83,650/- Made By The Assessing Officer On Account Of Non-Deduction Of Tds & Reversed In Lower Appellate Proceedings.

Section 144Section 194HSection 40Section 44A