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

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.35

Section 40(a)(iib) 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)(iib) is NTPC. In Commissioner of Income- Tax v. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. (244 ITR 738), cited in 23 of the 72 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40(a)(iib)

NTPC. In Commissioner of Income- Tax v. New Horizon Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd.
244 ITR 738 · 2000 · High Court
23
citing judgments

Amounts set apart towards a statutory reserve fund, where the assessee has no power to spend the funds and must adhere to government directions, are required to be excluded from the total income of the assessee.

Kerala State Beverages Manufacturing and Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. ACIT
134 Taxmann.com 11 · 2022 · Supreme Court
17
citing judgments

Payments made by a State Government undertaking to the State Government for a guarantee commission are disallowable under Section 40(a)(iib) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they represent a charge levied by the State on its own undertaking.

Judgments on Section 40(a)(iib)

Shri Saddrudin N. Shaikh, Valsad vs. The Dy.CIT, Valsad Circle, Valsad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3440/AHD/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2018AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri $. D. Chheda, CA: TTJFT 31l7 # /For Respondent: Shri B. P. K Panda, Sr. DR: HTarf # aru/

DCIT, Cir-7(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Beekay Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-11, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 624/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 233/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 37Section 40Section 43B

M/S. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2869/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 37Section 40Section 43B

M/S. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2868/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 37Section 40Section 43B

M/S. Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2867/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 37Section 40Section 43B

Tamilnadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2866/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

Section 37Section 40Section 43B

ACIT, Circle-2(2), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Srb Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 504/CTK/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack16 Jun 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri D.K.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Rehan A.R. Sumar(Prop. Aar Ess Enterprise), Mumbai vs. ITO 12(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 857/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri N.K. Pradhan

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purshottam Kumar

C I T vs. M/S Raj State Ganganagar Sugar

ITA/99/2009HC Rajasthan26 May 2016
Section 145ASection 260ASection 36(1)Section 43B

Commissioner of Income Tax-XI vs. Delhi Housing & Finance Corporaiton

The appeal is dismissed

ITA - 38 / 2013HC Delhi12 Feb 2013

Bench: The Tribunal Was With Regard To The Correct Valuation Of Two Plots Sold By The Respondent/ Assessee During The Financial Year Ending 31.03.2003 Which Was Relevant To The Assessment Year 2003-04. One Plot Was Of Radhey 2013:Dhc:715-Db

For Appellant: Mr Karan Khanna, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms AsmitaFor Respondent: None