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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.35

Section 40(a)(ii) 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)(ii) is Sesa Goa Ltd. v. JCIT (117 Taxmann.com 96), cited in 291 of the 393 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

Education cess paid by an assessee is not allowable as a deduction under Section 37 read with Section 40(a)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, as it is considered a 'tax'. This position was affirmed by the Supreme Court in a later decision.

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

Additional depreciation under Section 32(1)(iia) can be claimed in the year an asset is acquired and installed, even if it is claimed in a subsequent year of acquisition and installation.

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)

Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1256/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1256/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2017-18) Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited. Ground Floor, Spectrum Towers, Mindspace, Chincholi Bunder Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai – 400 064. Pan: Aabch-8136-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 13(3)(2), Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate With Shri Harsh Kapadia, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Ground Assailing Disallowance Made U/S. 14A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (In Short ‘The Rules’) Amounting To Rs.80,08,567/-. The Assessee Vide Application Dated 13/09/2022 Has Raised An Additional Ground

For Appellant: Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Shri Harsh Kapadia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.AR
Section 14A

Accenture Solutions P Ltd (Asol), Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/ Dy/CIT/Asstt/ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi & the Dy CIT, Circle-14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1255/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Amarjit Singhaccenture Solutions Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (‘Asol’) Assistant Commissioner Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Of Income Tax/Income- Complex, Phirojshah Tax Officer, National Nagar, Vikhroli West, Facelless Assessment Off L.B.S Marg, Centre, Delhi Mumbai – 400079 The Dcit, Circle 14(1)(1) स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach3235M Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/ Ms. Jasmin Amalsadvala Respondent By : Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath Date Of Hearing 22.05.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ao (National Assessment Centre) Mumbai- 2, Dated 18.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 As Per The Direction Of The Drp Issued U/S 144C (5) Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Transfer Pricing Officer (Tpo), Based On The Directions Of The Hon'Ble Drp Has: General Ground 1. Erred In Assessing The Total Income Of The Appellant At Rs.2888,33,73,016 Against A Total Income Of Rs.2179,39,30,620 As Reported By The Appellant In Its Revised Return Of Income & Determining A Demand Of Rs.2186,98,55,847 Payable By The Appellant.

For Appellant: Nishant Thakkar/ Hiten Chande/For Respondent: Azhar Zain Vayal Parambath
Section 144CSection 92CSection 92C(3)