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 WD 19(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Syed Kamrul Islam, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 948/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1115/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, The Ito 19(3)(2), Room No. 217, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Lalbaug, Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.948/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ The Ito 19(3)(2), Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, Piramal Chambers, Room No. 217, Vs. Lalbaug, Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Mumbai-400 012 Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afzps 3205D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Vipul J. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Department By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :03.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :24.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai Dated 04.12.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07. Both These Appeals Are Heard Together & They Are Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 37(1)Section 40

Syed Kamrul Islam, Mumbai vs. ITO 19(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1115/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.1115/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, The Ito 19(3)(2), Room No. 217, Piramal Chambers, Vs. Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Lalbaug, Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Mumbai-400 012 Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 आयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No.948/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 बनाम/ The Ito 19(3)(2), Shri Syed Kamrul Islam, Piramal Chambers, Room No. 217, Vs. Lalbaug, Noor Ali Masjid Gali, Mumbai-400 012 Raju Nagar, Bazar Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afzps 3205D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Assessee By: Shri Vipul J. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Department By: Shri R.A. Dhyani सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :03.02.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :24.02.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per C.N. Prasad, Jm: These Are Cross Appeals By The Assessee & The Revenue Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-30, Mumbai Dated 04.12.2013 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07. Both These Appeals Are Heard Together & They Are Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience.

For Appellant: Shri Vipul J. ShahFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani
Section 143(3)Section 194CSection 37(1)Section 40

DCIT 4(1), Mumbai vs. Hdfc Securities Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3137/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ram Lal Negiआयकर अपील सं/.Ita No.3137/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 Dcit-4(1) M/S. Hdfc Securities Limited Room No.640, 6Th Floor Office Floor 8, Alpha Bldg.-B, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. I Techno Think Campus, Mumbai-400 020. Kanjur Marg, Mumbai-400 042. Pan:Aaach 8215 R (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3502/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Hdfc Securities Limited Dcit-4(1) Mumbai. Vs. Mumbai. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Yogesh Thar-Ar राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri B.D. Naik-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.02.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 क" धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) खंडपीठ खंडपीठ केकेकेके अनुसार खंडपीठ खंडपीठ अनुसार अनुसार Per Bench, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order,Dated 06.02.2014 Of Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessee & The Assessing Officer(Ao)Have Filed Cross-Appeals.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking & Share Trading,Filed Its Return Of Income On 13.10. 2011, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 124.66 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment, U/S 143(3) Of The Act,On 23.02.2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.127.91 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar-ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Naik-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194Section 194JSection 254(1)Section 40