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 15(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Om Namah Shivay Enterprises, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6371/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.6371/M/2013 (Assessment Year: 2007-2008) फनाभ/ Ito-15(2)(4), Om Namah Shivay Matru Mandir, R.No.111, Enterprises, Shop No.6, Raj Vs. Grant Road (W), Umang Ii, Ashokvan Dahisar Mumbai – 400 007. East, Mumbai-400068. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabfo0605J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Durga Datt, Dr प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : None सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 16.12.2015 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue On 30.10.2013 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-26, Mumbai Dated 18.5.2011 For The Assessment Year 2007-2008. 2. The Only Issue Involved In This Appeal Relates To The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Before Us, Despite Service Of Notice & The Intimation To The Assessee, None Represented For The Assessee. With The Help Of The Ld Dr For The Revenue, We Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal On Merits. 3. Ld Dr For The Revenue Briefly Narrated The Facts As Well As Merits Of The Case & Stated The Revenue Is Aggrieved Against The Order Of The Cit (A), Who Deleted The Said Penalty Of Rs. 7,42,041/-. In The Assessment, Ao Made Addition Of Rs. 22,04,604/- U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. Further, Ao Also Made Another Addition On Account Of „Interest‟ Of Rs. 71,078/- On The Debit Balances In The Partners‟ Account Of The Firm. Ao Estimated The Interest Applying The Flat Rate Of 12% On Ad-Hoc Basis. Subsequently, Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings & Levied Penalty Of Rs. 7,42,071/-. On Appeal, Cit (A) Deleted The Same Vide His Order Dated 22.8.2013. While Deleting

For Appellant: Shri Durga Datt, DRFor Respondent: None
Section 271(1)(c)Section 40