Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 40(a)(ii) is Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96), cited in 291 of the 69 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ii)

Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT
117 Taxmann.com 96 · 2020 · High Court
291
citing judgments

Education cess paid on total income and dividend distribution tax are allowable deductions for income tax purposes.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
341 ITR 385 · 2012 · High Court
270
citing judgments

A provision for doubtful debts cannot be added back while computing book profits under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act for Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT) purposes.

CIT v. K. Srinivasan
83 ITR 346 · 1972 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

The term 'tax' includes surcharge and cess. Surcharge and additional surcharge are considered components of income tax, which can be levied as a basic charge, surcharge, special surcharge, and additional surcharge.

M.M. Aqua Technologies Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi
2021 SCC OnLine SC 575 · 2021 · Reported
102
citing judgments

A tax provision is retrospective only if legislative intent is explicit or if it is purely clarificatory and does not alter existing law. Provisions framed 'for the removal of doubts' are not presumed to be retrospective if they change the law as it stood.

Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals Ltd. v. JCIT
107 Taxmann.com 484 · 2019 · High Court
49
citing judgments
CIT v. Raymond Ltd.
21 Taxmann.com 60 · 2012 · High Court
48
citing judgments

The amount transferred to Debenture Redemption Reserve is to be excluded when computing book profit under section 115JB for the purpose of Minimum Alternate Tax.

Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Bihar
48 ITR 123 · 1963 · Supreme Court
43
citing judgments

An integrated business engaged in captive consumption derives profits or value from its internal activities, even when intermediate products are not sold externally. The principle that a person cannot make profits out of himself does not apply to deny profits from such internal operations for tax or cess purposes.

DCIT v. Gloster Jute Mills Limited
88 Taxmann.com 738 · 2017 · ITAT
39
citing judgments

A coordinate bench decision in the assessee's own case for earlier assessment years is relevant to the current issue.

CIT v. Sulzer India Ltd.
369 ITR 717 · 2014 · High Court
38
citing judgments

Where an assessee discharges a future liability at its present value, it does not result in a "benefit" accruing to the assessee, and therefore, Section 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable.

CIT v. Shri Goverdhan Ltd.
69 ITR 675 · 1968 · Supreme Court
37
citing judgments

Income accrues to an assessee when they acquire a right to receive it, even if it has not yet been actually received or quantified. A debt is created once liability is established, and its future quantification does not make it contingent.

Judgments on Section 40(a)(ii)

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1781 & 1782/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacu2690P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar : 04/03/2026 : 13/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 01/08/2025 & Dated 07/08/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18 & A.Υ. 2018-19 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

ACIT, CIRCLE-5(1), HYDERABAD vs. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1781 & 1782/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ष/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Income Tax, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad. Limited, Hyderabad. Pan: Aaacu2690P (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) करदाताकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्वकाप्रतिनिधित्व/ Department Represented By सुनवाईसमाप्तहोनेकीतिथि/ Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/ Date Of Pronouncement : Shri H. Srinivasulu, Advocate : Shri Mathivanan S A, Sr. Ar : 04/03/2026 : 13/03/2026 Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Revenue Feeling Aggrieved By The Different Orders Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 01/08/2025 & Dated 07/08/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18 & A.Υ. 2018- 19 Respectively. Since Both The Appeals Are Related To The Same Assessee, They Are Heard Together & One Consolidated Order Is Being Passed For The Sake Of Brevity.

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

INSIGHT PRINT COMMUNICATIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. THE PCIT, MUMBAI-4, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3384/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2020-21 Insight Print Communications Pcit, Mumbai-4 Private Limited A-14, Synthofine Industrial Estate, Behind Virvani Industrial Estate, Vs. Dindoshi, Off Aarey Road, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063 (Pan: Aabci6530P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Lalchand Choudhary, Ca Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Revisionary Order By Ld. Pcit, Mumbai-4, Vide Order No. Itba/Rev/F/Rev5/2024- 25/1074740466(1), Dated 20.03.2025 Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Against The Assessment Order By Assessment Unit, U/S. 143(3) R.W.S.144B Of The Act, Dated 22.09.2022, For Ay 2020-21. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Appellant Prefers The Following Appeal Against The Order Dated 20/03/2025 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Mumbai-4 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Pcit ") Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act"). Each Of The Grounds Is In Alternative & Without Prejudice To Other.

For Appellant: Shri Lalchand Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37Section 40

Showing 120 of 69 · Page 1 of 4