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, Chennai vs. Goldquest International Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 780/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.412/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 M/S. Goldquest International Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, The Rain Tree Place, ‘B’ Wing, 9Th Vs. Company Circle Ii (1), Floor, No. 7, Mcnichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 031. [Pan: Aabcg3717C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.780/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Goldquest International Pvt. Ltd., The Rain Tree Place, ‘B’ Wing, 9Th Floor, Corporate Ward 2(2), Vs. Chennai - 34. No. 7, Mcnichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. Department By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 43B

Goldquest International Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 412/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.412/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 M/S. Goldquest International Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, The Rain Tree Place, ‘B’ Wing, 9Th Vs. Company Circle Ii (1), Floor, No. 7, Mcnichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 031. [Pan: Aabcg3717C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.780/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2006-07 The Income Tax Officer, M/S. Goldquest International Pvt. Ltd., The Rain Tree Place, ‘B’ Wing, 9Th Floor, Corporate Ward 2(2), Vs. Chennai - 34. No. 7, Mcnichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai 600 031. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G. Seetharaman, C.A. Department By : Shri Asish Tripathi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee & The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -

For Appellant: Shri G. Seetharaman, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 43B

DCIT Cir 29(3), Mumbai vs. Sunraj Industries, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 2589/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit Cir 29(3), Vs. M/S Sunraj Industries, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, 218, Veena Indl Estate, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, L.B.S. Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhandup (E), Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1871/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sunraj Industries, Vs. The Acit Cir 23 (1), 218, Veena Indl Estate, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vikhroli (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Lala (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against Order Dated 16/02/2015 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-40, Mumbai Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Lala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 40

Sunraj Industries, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Cir 23(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed and the assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 1871/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2589/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) The Dcit Cir 29(3), Vs. M/S Sunraj Industries, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, 218, Veena Indl Estate, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, L.B.S. Marg, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bhandup (E), Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) & आिकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1871/Mum/2015 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) M/S Sunraj Industries, Vs. The Acit Cir 23 (1), 218, Veena Indl Estate, Room No. 402, 4Th Floor, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, C-10, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vikhroli (West), Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai- 400083 Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400051 स्थािी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaofs8367E (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (Dr) यनर्ावररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Deepak Lala (Ar) सुनर्ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 31/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ram Lal Negi, Jm These Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Revenue & The Assessee Against Order Dated 16/02/2015 Passed By The Ld. Cit (A)-40, Mumbai Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Whereby The Ld. Cit (A) Has Partly

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Lala (AR)For Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar Rai (DR)
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 145Section 40

DCIT, Cir-12(2), Kolkata vs. M/S. Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue ( Ground No

ITA 2205/KOL/2014[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Aug 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2205/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 D.C.I.T, Cirle-12(2), Vs. M/S Selvel Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata 10/1B, Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata – 700 027. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcs 7951 G (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By :Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate Revenue/Department By :Shri G. Mallikarjuna, Cit Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/07/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–Xii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.237/Xii/Cir-12/14-15 Dated 17.09.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 20.03.2014. 2. Revenue Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,42,76,824/- Made By The A.O. On Depreciation On Hoarding Structures.” 2. “That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In The Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Deleting The Disallowance Of Rs. 1,66,53,847/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Deduction U/S. 80-Ia.”

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 80

M/S. Jyoti Construction, Keonjhar vs. Principal CIT, Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.188/Ctk/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2011-2012) M/S Jyoti Construction, Barbil, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2(1), Keonjhar Sambalpur "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacfj 8820 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Satyajit Nanda, Ar राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Citdr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A), Cuttack, Dated 15.03.2016, Passed U/S.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Sole Substantive Ground Raised By The Assessee That The Order Passed By Ld.Cit Is Without Merit & Does Not Satisfy The Twin Conditions Required Under The Law. 3. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm & Engaged In Contract Works & Filed The Return Of Income Electronically On 19.10.2011 With Total Income Of Rs.70,67,777/-. Subsequently Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass & Notices U/S.143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act Were Issued. In Compliance, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appeared & Case Was Discussed & Produced Financial Statements. Ld. Ao After Verifying The Various Documents Found That The Assessee Has Not Paid The Statutory Liability Before The Due Date Of Filing Of 2 Return Of Income U/S.139() Of The Act & Disallowed U/S.43B Of The Act

For Appellant: Shri Satyajit Nanda, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CITDR
Section 139Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 263Section 40Section 43B

Crr Leathers, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 616/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.616/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2008-09 M/S. Crr Leathers, The Income Tax Officer, 9/5, Patnool Sardarjung Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Periamet, Chennai 600 003. Chennai 600 006. [Pan: Aaafc4173G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 08.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai Dated 27.10.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2008-09, Wherein, In The Grounds Appeal, Besides Challenging The Confirmation Of Various Additions For Want Of Tds Under Section 195 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short], The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged Confirmation Of Reopening Of Assessment, Which Is Barred By Limitation.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K. Ravi, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 195Section 40

M/S National Coal Development Corporation Staff Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-32(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1249/KOL/2015[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Aug 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1249/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. National Coal Development Corporation -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-32(2) Staff Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaaln 0409 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent : Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2017. Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2017. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.07.2015 Of C.I.T(A)-9, Kolkata Relating To A.Y.2012-13. 2. Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Reads As Follows :- “ 1.For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Action Of The A.O. In Holding That The Interest Income Earned By The Assessee-Credit Society Amounting To Rs. 40,76,664/- On Account Of Fixed Deposits Does Not Qualify For Deduction· U/S.80P. 2. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Considered That The Judgment In The Case Of Totgars Co - Operative Sale Society Ltd. Vs. Ito 322 Itr 283 (Sc) Is Not Applicable To The Facts Of The Assessee'S Case. 3. For That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Allowed The Proportionate Deduction In Respect Of Interest Paid / Payable To The Members Out Of The Interest Income. 4. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Adjudicating Ground No. (Vi) Raised In The Memorandum Of Appeal. 5. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Giving Any Finding/Direction To The A.O. In Respect Of Ground Nos. (I) (Vi) & (Vii).

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT
Section 40Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)