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-2(3), Durgapur, Kolkata vs. M/S Height Insurance Services Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2266/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Income Tax Officer, V/S. M/S Height Insurance Ward-2(3), R/No.10/21, Services Ltd., Room 7Th Floor, Aayakar No.319,3Rd Floor, Bhawan, P-7, Kamalaya Centre, 156A, Chowringhee Square, Lenin Sarani, Kolakta-13 Kolkata-69 [Pan No.Aacch 0943 G] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Md. Usman, Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-05-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 08-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2016 In Case No. 188/Cit(A)-14/Wd-1(1)/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. 2. The Revenue’S Solitary Grievance Pleaded In The Instant Appeal Seeks To Revive Section 37 R.W 40(A)(Ia) Disallowances / Addition Of ₹66,18,00,000/- Pertaining To Assessee’S Service Charges Paid To M/S Golden Trust Financial Services (Gtfs) Hereafter For Having Acted As Its Agent. It’S Next Two Averments Are That The Cit(A) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Examining Assessee’S Exclusive Method Of Accounting In Service Tax Receivable On Output Services As Against Inclusive Method Of Service Tax

Section 143(3)Section 37

ITO 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. L & T Hcc Joint Venture, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 8451/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.8451/Mum/2011 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Ito 12(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. L&T Hcc Joint R.No. 116, 1St Floor, Venture L&T House, N.M. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Marg, Ballard Estate, Road, Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400001. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaal0661M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri R. P. Meena (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Vijay Mehta (Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08.03.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06.06.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.09.2011 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -23, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1 On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Income Of The Assessee Is Liable To Be Assessed As A Separate Independent Entity & Can Not Be Assessed As An Aop. 1A While Doing So The Id Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That The Assessee Being The Joint Venture It Can Be Treated As An Aop In A.Y.2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta (AR)For Respondent: Shri R. P. Meena (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 2Section 2(31)Section 2(31)(v)Section 40

Globe Cast India Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 5172/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillaiassessment Years: 2012-13 Globe Cast India Private Ltd. Vs. Dcit Circle- 10(1) 601, 6Th Floor, Dlf South Court C.R. Building, New Saket, New Delhi Delhi Pan: Aaccg0015C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. R. Raghunath, Ca Department By : Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2018 Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 14.7.2016 Confirming The Penalty Of Rs. 8,53,353/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred Also Called The Act) In Relation To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Briefly Stated Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Technical & Professional Services Relating To News /Events Fields Etc. A Sum Of Rs. 30,03,000/- Was Debited To The Profit & Loss Account Under The Head `Legal & Professional Charges’. This Amount Was Paid To M/S Giv Marketing Pvt. Limited For Conducting Market Research Survey To Increase Its Customer Base In India. The Assessing Officer Held That The Assessee Was Likely To Get Enduring Having From Such Expenditure. He Capitalized This Amount & Allowed Depreciation @ 25%, Which Led To Addition Of Rs. 22,52,250/-. In Addition, The Assessing Officer Found That The Assessee Did Not Deduct Tax At Source In Respect Of Three Payments Under Section 194C & 194J Of The Act. Invoking The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia), He Made An Addition At Rs. 2,73,061/-. Thereafter, Penalty Was Imposed With A Reference To The Above Additions, Which Came To Be Affirmed In The First Appeal.

For Appellant: Sh. R. Raghunath, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR
Section 194CSection 271(1)(c)Section 3Section 40

Fedex Express Services (India) P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 8(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 7409/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 7409/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Fedex Express Services (India) Private Addl. Cit, Range 8(1), बनाम/ Limited Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, 12, Koteshwar Palace, Jiva Mahale Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Marg, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 069 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 3802 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3088/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Fedex Express Transportation & Dy. Cit – 8(1), Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Supply Chain Services India Private Limited (‘Fetscs’) Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Road, [Fedex Express Services India Private Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ Limited Merged With Fetscs W.E.F Vs. 01.10.2013] Boomerang, Unit No. 801, Wing-A, 8Th Floor, Chandivali Farm Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 072 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp 3802 G (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Bafna/ Shri Ravi Sawana ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pooja Swaroop

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Bafna/For Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 234BSection 234CSection 43B