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)

Keshvan Jewellers, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 32, Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1530/KOL/2025[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Oct 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.1530/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Keshvan Jewellers………….…………………....…………………....Appellant 80, Burtolla Street, Barabazar, Kol-7. [Pan: Aaefk3801F] Vs. Acit, Circle-32, Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. N. Barnwal, Cit, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 13, 2025 आदेश / Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 21.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹ 74,81,790/-. During The Course Of Scrutiny Proceedings Under Sections 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act, The Assessing Officer Determined The Total Income At ₹2,77,84,400. The Addition Was Made On Account Of Disallowance Of Loss Claimed In The Manufacturing Process, Amounting To ₹ 2,03,02,614. The Assessing Officer Observed That The Assessee Had Claimed A Process-Loss Of About 3.38% Of The Value Of Goods

Section 194CSection 250Section 40

Jaro Institute of Technology Management and Research Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5062/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Jaro Institute Of Technology Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Management & Research Ltd. Circle-4(3)(1), Mumbai 11Th Floor, Vikas Centre, Dr. C. G. Vs. Road, Chembur, Fci, S.O. Mumbai – 400074. Pan/Gir No. Aaccj2107Q (Appellant) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Jay Thakkar Respondent By : Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2022-23. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Condoning The Delay In Filing The 1" Appeal Of 118 Days & Ought To Have Considered The Bonafide Reasons & Compelling Circumstances, Supported With Affidavit, That Had Precluded The Appellant To File The 1" Appeal In Time, 2.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Ought To Have Deleted The Disallowance Of Sales & Promotion Expenses Of Rs.2,73,78,889, Jaro Institution Of Technology Management & Research Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri Jay ThakkarFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik, SR DR
Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40