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)

ITO, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar vs. Tribal Development Co-Operative Corporation of Odisha Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 479/CTK/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack27 Sept 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.479/Ctk/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2014-2015) Ito, Ward-4(2), Bhubaneswar Vs. Tribal Development Co- Operative Corporation Of Odisha Limited, Rupali Square, Bhoi Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaat 3642 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Subhendu Dutta, Jcitdr "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Miss Swati Kejriwal, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 12/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A), Bhubaneswar, Dated 30.08.2017, Passed In I.T.Appeal No.0218/2016-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-2015. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Is Erroneous Both In Facts & In Law. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & Having Regard To The Reasons Stated By The Assessing Officer(Ao) In Para (4.0) Of The Assessment Order, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Claim Of Brought Forward Loss Of Rs.16758010/- Made By The Ao In The Assessment. 3. Having Regard To The Reasons Stated By The Ao In Para 5.0 Of The Assessment Order & In Absence Of Any Opportunity Given To The Ao For Verifying The Claim/Matter W.R.T., The Submissions Made By The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs.60,40,492/- Made

For Appellant: Miss Swati Kejriwal, ARFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, JCITDR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Strategic Marketing Solution & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 742/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Sept 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Godara, Jm] I.T.A. No. 742/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Dcit Circle 12(2), Kolkata...............................………………………….........................Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, 6Th Floor, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. [Pan: Aancs 5110 K] M/S. Strategic Marketing Solution & Research Centre Pvt. Ltd...............Respondent 58/1, Ballygunge Circular Road, Kolkata – 700 019. Appearances By: Shri Robin Chowdhury, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri Saral Kandoi, Ar Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 18, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 26, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 18, Kolkata Dated 31.01.2017 & The Solitary Ground Raised Therein Reads As Under: “That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) – 18, Kolkata Has Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Made By The Ao U/S 37(1) Of Rs. 70,61,774/- Regarding Printing Expenses Claimed By The Assessee Company In Which The Gift Of Writing Pads Given To The Medical Practitioners Was Treated By The Ao As ‘Freebies’ & Without Properly Considering The Fact That Circular No. 5 Of 2012 Is Of Clarificatory Nature & Disallowance Of Gift (Freebies) U/S 37(1) Should Be Treated To Be Applicable W.E.F. 10.12.2009 I.E. From The Date Of Prohibition Of Imposition By The Indian Medical Council To The Medical Practitioners.”

Section 194CSection 37Section 37(1)Section 40