Section 40(b) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.35

Section 40(b) 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(b) is Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (107 ITR 195), cited in 165 of the 428 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40(b)

Textile Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. CIT
107 ITR 195 · 1977 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

A new industrial undertaking is not considered a reconstruction of an existing business for tax deduction purposes if it is a separate, independent production unit manufacturing commercially tangible products that can operate without losing its identity in the old business. The transfer and substantial use of assets and manpower from an old business to a new one may indicate reconstruction.

7.14 In CIT v. Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. Co. Ltd.
196 ITR 149 · 1992 · Supreme Court
120
citing judgments

Incentive provisions in the Income-tax Act, particularly those granting deductions for new industrial undertakings, must be construed liberally to achieve their legislative purpose. This principle guides the interpretation of conditions such as what constitutes a 'new undertaking' versus a 'splitting up or reconstruction' of an existing business for claiming deductions.

CIT v. Ramniklal Kothari
74 ITR 57 · 1969 · Supreme Court
28
citing judgments

A partner's income from a firm, including salary, bonus, commission, or remuneration, is considered business income in their hands. Expenses necessary for earning this business income are deductible.

CIT vs. South Arcot Soc. (176 ITR 117, 119) (SC) Ct v. UO Co-op Fed. (
177 ITR 418 · 1989 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

Provisions granting deduction, exemption, or relief to an assessee are to be interpreted liberally and in favour of the assessee.

Haji Nazir Hussain v. ITO
91 ITD 42 · 2004 · ITAT
19
citing judgments

Section 68 additions can be made based on impounded papers, even if sums are not credited in books, to prevent assessees from benefiting from their own lapses.

Assam Bengal Cement Co. Ltd. v. CIT
159 ITR 253 · 1986 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred with a view to producing profits is considered revenue expenditure.

Md. Serajuddin & Brothers v. CIT
210 Taxmann 84 · 2012 · High Court
16
citing judgments

Where a firm claims deduction for partner's remuneration under Section 40(b), income from other sources that is included in the profit and loss account cannot be excluded when calculating 'book profit'.

CIT v. Anil Hardware Store
323 ITR 368 · 2010 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Sanjeevi & Co. v. CIT
62 ITR 156 · 1966 · High Court
5
citing judgments
225 ITR 640 (MP) CIT vs Orissa Corporation (P) Ltd, 159 ITR 78 (SC) CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd.
292 ITR 241 · 2007 · High Court
4
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 40(b)

Suvidha Enterprises, Borivali West Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 32(1), Bandra East Mumbai

The appeal stand allowed

ITA 4908/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Jun 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.4908/Mum/2025 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S Suvidha Enterprises Acit - Circle 32(1) 1601, 16Th Floor, Jalaram Heights Room No. 702, 7Th Floor बिधम/ Ganjawala Lane, Borivali (W), Kautilyabhavan, C-41 To C-43, G Block, Vs. Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400092 Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aarfs-6316-E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Mahadev Khandelwal (Adv.) – Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh.Harendra Verma (Addl. Cit) - Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-06-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 11-06-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 05.06.2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 21.12.2019. The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is Disallowance Of Remuneration Of Rs.40 Lacs Paid To Each Of The Two Partners Of The Assessee-Firm.

For Appellant: Sh. Mahadev Khandelwal (Adv.) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh.Harendra Verma (Addl. CIT) - Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40

Bharat Paper Mart, Mumbai vs. Assistatant Commissioner of Incme Tax Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, ground no.1 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 5594/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Paper Mart Assistant Commissioner Of 219, Podar Chambers, S.A. Income Tax Circle-17(1), Mumbai Brelvi Road, Fort, Mumbai Vs. Maharashtra 400001 (Pan: Aajfb0186H) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Dr. K. Shivaram. Sr. Advocate Revenue : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2026 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Vide Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078818110(1), Dated 23.07.2025, Passed Against The Assessment Order By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax- 17(1)(2), Mumbai, U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 04.03.2016 For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2 Bharat Paper Mart Ay 2013-14 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: 1. The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Confirming Order Of Assessing Officer Disallowing Partner'S Remuneration Of Rs.31,30,490/- Paid To Working Partner Out Of Remuneration Of Rs.99,76,470/- Paid To Him Without Appreciating That Said Remuneration Was Paid In Accordance With The Provisions Of Section 40(B)(V) Of Income Tax Act 1961 & Hence The Disallowance Of Remuneration Of Rs. 31,30,490/- May Be Deleted. 2. The Learned Nfac Erred In Confirming Order Of Assessing Officer Taxing Commission Income Of Rs. 3,77,617/ On The Basis Of Form No. 26As Without Appreciating That Said Commission Income Was Not Taxable In A.Y. 2013-14 & Hence The Addition Of Rs. 3,77,617/- May Be Deleted. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend, Alter Or Delete Any Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Dr. K. Shivaram. Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40