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)

ACIT, Circle-3, Suri, Birbhum vs. Sri Sarojit Kumar Dey, Birbhum

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2218/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Sept 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 2218/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Acit, Circle-3, Suri.............................……………………………………………………Appellant Aayakar Bhawan, Lalkuthipara Suri, Birbhum -731101 Shri Sarojit Kr. Dey……………….......................................................................Respondent Ahmadpur, Birbhum West Bengal, Pin - 731201 [Pan: Adqpd8637B] Appearances By: Shri Kalyan Nath, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 14, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 22, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of Learned Cit (Appeals) Asansol Dated 13.10.2014 On The Following Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Holding Rejection Of The Assessee’S Default In Complying The Provisions Of Section 194C(6) & (7). 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 75,82,759/- & Rs. 38,11,909/-. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Correct In Law As Well As In Fact In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 7,00,000/- Taking The Plea Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Which Was Quoted By Mistake In His Order Though The Ao At The Beginning Narrated The Expenses As Per Section 192 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee In The Present Case Is An Individual Who Is Engaged In The Business Of Running Country Spirit Bottling Plant Cum Warehouse. The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration

Section 143(3)Section 192Section 194CSection 194C(6)Section 194C(7)Section 200(3)Section 40

ITO 17(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Rajeshwaree Shipping & Logistics, Mumbai

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

ITA 5321/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.5321/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Ito 17(3)(1) बिधम/ Rajeshswaree Shipping & Room No. 114/111A, 1St Logistics Vs. 24 Bhanushali Bldg. 35, Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Rd. Mumbai - 400020 Mint Road, Near Gpo, Fort, Mumbai Pin:400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfr1162R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (Dr) Assessee By: Shri None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.08.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22.09.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 29.06.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 28, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Holding That The Provisions Of Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Due To Non Deduction Of Tds In Respect Of Payments Made By The Assessee For & On Behalf Of Its Clients, Which Are Fully Reimbursed To It By Its Clients, Cannot Be Invoked In The Case Of The Assessee & Thereby Directing To Delete The

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 260ASection 40