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)

Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3), Mumbai

ITA 3706/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3705-06/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06&06-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir Acit- Circle-13(3) 13, M.A. Sarang Marg, Dongri Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. Vs Pan: Aadpe 2591 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Aarsi Prasad-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 03.02.14 Of Cit(A)-24,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising The Identical Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Challenged The Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit-ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir, Mumbai vs. ACIT 13(3), Mumbai

ITA 3705/MUM/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.3705-06/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2005-06&06-07 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Shri Edroos Syed Mohammed Zakir Acit- Circle-13(3) 13, M.A. Sarang Marg, Dongri Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. Vs Pan: Aadpe 2591 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर सेसेसेसे/Assessee By : Shri Prakash Pandit-Ar िनधा"रती िनधा"रती ओर ओर राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Aarsi Prasad-Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19-11-2015 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 1961 1961 क" 1961 क" धारा धारा 254 254 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त 254 अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 03.02.14 Of Cit(A)-24,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Appeals For The Above Mentioned Two Assessment Years(Ay.S.)Raising The Identical Grounds Of Appeal Wherein He Has Challenged The Penalty Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Pandit-ARFor Respondent: Shri Aarsi Prasad-DR
Section 143(3)Section 194HSection 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

Johnson Controls (I) P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 9(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 8722/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhi.T.A. No.8722/M/2010 (Assessment Year: 2006-2007) I.T.A. No.8855/M/2011 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008) फनाभ/ Johnson Controls (India) Dcit-8(2), Private Limited, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. 501-502, Prime Corporate M.K. Road, Mumbai – 40020. Park, Near Itc Grand Maratha, Sahar Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 099. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacj3132B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Nishant Thakkar प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Rupinder Brar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 26.10.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration. These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Involving The Ays 2006-07 & 2007-2008. Since, The Issues Raised In Both These Appeals Either Identical Or Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed, Heard Combinedly & Disposed Of In This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Succeeding Paragraphs Of This Order. 2. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 14.12.2010 Against The Orders Of The Drp / Tpo / Ao. In This Appeal, Assessee Raised Four Grounds In Toto. 3. Ground No.1 Relates To The Transfer Pricing Issue. In This Ground, The Issue Needs To Be Adjudicated Is Whether The Profit Split Method (Psm) Is The Most „Appropriate Method‟ When Data Is Not Available On The Cup Method As Most

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Rupinder Brar, DR

ACIT 25(2), Mumbai vs. Priti R. Jaggi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and the Cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 791/MUM/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Dec 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Billaiyaआयकर अपील सं/ I.Ta No. 791/Mum/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम/ The Acit-25(2), Mrs. Priti R. Jaggi, C-11-Pratyakshakar 1702, Krishna Heritage, Vs. Bhavan, Link Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp. Don Bosco School, Bandra (E), Borivali (W),Mumbai-400 092 Mumbai-4000 051 C.O. No. 229/Mum/2014 (Arising Out Of Ita No. 791/M/2012 Assessment Year:2008-09 बनाम/ Mrs. Priti R. Jaggi, The Acit-25(2), 1702, Krishna Heritage, C-11-Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Vs. Link Road, Bandra Kurla Complex, Opp. Don Bosco School, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 092[[ Mumbai-4000 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Afppj 5440N (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Revenue By: Shri K.Ravi Kiran ""यथ" क" ओर से/Assesee By: None सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing :22.12.2015 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement :22.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Very Same Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-35, Mumbai Dated 29.11.2011. 2

For Respondent: Shri K.Ravi Kiran
Section 194A(3)Section 194CSection 194HSection 40