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)

Sri Debabrata Mukherjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-53(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1085/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1085/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Shri Debabrata Mukherjee Vs. Ito, Ward-53(1), Akra, Krishana Nagar, 2, Gariahat Road(South) Bata Nagar, 24-Paraganas Kolkata-700068 (South), Kolkata-743313 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afepm 1809 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Nilratan Dutta, Fca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Biswanath Das,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 20/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 08/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxiii, Kolkata, In Appeal No.178/Cit(A)-Xxxiii/Ito Ward 53(1) Kol /10-11, Dated 14.02.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To The ‘Act’), Dated 28.12.2010. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2008-09 Was Filed By The Assessee On 30-09- 2008 Showing Total Income Of Rs.4,03,976/-. The Return Of Income Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S.143(1) Of The Act. Later On Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny U/S.143(3) Of The Act & The Ao Completed The Assessment By Making Addition U/S 40(A) (Ia) At Rs.1,19,000/- & On Account Of Car Hire Charges At Rs.45,644/-.

For Appellant: Shri Nilratan Dutta, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das,JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 40

Ambika Prasad Roy Chowdhury, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Burdwan

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1549/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1549/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-10) Ambika Prasad Roy Vs. Ito Ward-2(4), Burdwan, Chowdhury, Aayakar Bhawan, Prop.: Anita Enterprise, Court Compound, Kachari Road, Katwa, Burdwan-713101 Burdwan-713130 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Adjpr 8275 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Soumitra Choudhury, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghayas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-Budwan, Kolkata In Appeal No.289/Cit(A)/Asl/Wd.2(4)/Bwn/2011- 12, Dated 31.05.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 22.12.2011. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2009-2010 On 30.09.2009 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,26,720/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) On Dated 28.10.2010. Later On Assessee’S Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Has Completed The Assessment By Making The Addition On Account Of Activation Charges U/S.40(A)(Ia) & Addition U/S.43B On Account Of Outstanding Service Tax Etc.

For Appellant: Shri Soumitra Choudhury, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghayas Uddin, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40Section 43B

M/S Govind Lal Diga, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-45(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1478/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1478/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2006-07) M/S Govind Lal Diga, Vs. Ito, Ward-45(2), Kolkata, C/O S.L.Kochar, Advocate, 3, Govt. Place West, 86, Canning Street, Kolkata-700001 Kolkata-700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Aacfg 4663 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil Kochar, Advocate Revenue By : Md. Ghyas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 03/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-21, Kolkata In Appeal No.1256/Ito, Ward-45(2)/Cit(A)-21/Kol/14- 15, Dated 20.06.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.11.2008. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Qua The Assessee Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The A.Y.2006-07 On 31-10-2006 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.14,140/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Ao Framed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Making Various Additions. 3. Aggrieved From The Order Of Ao, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A), Who Has Confirmed The Order Passed By The Ao Observing The Followings :-

For Appellant: Shri Anil Kochar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 143(3)(ii)Section 40