Section 40A(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.36

Section 40A(2)(b) falls under section 40A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which corresponds to section 36 (Expenses or payments not deductible in certain circumstances) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 36 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 40A(2)(b) is CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (254 ITR 377), cited in 417 of the 1,172 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(b)

CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd.
254 ITR 377 · 2002 · High Court
417
citing judgments

When there is a nexus between an expenditure and the purpose of business, incurred on grounds of commercial expediency, the Revenue cannot question its reasonableness or assume the role of the businessman to compel profit maximization. This principle applies even if the business is not that of the assessee itself.

CIT v. Winsome Textile Industries Ltd.
319 ITR 204 · 2009 · High Court
378
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which disallows expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income, is not applicable if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

Eastern Investments Ltd. v. CIT
38 ITR 601 · 1960 · Supreme Court
346
citing judgments

Expenditure must be commercially expedient for carrying on the business, and it is not for revenue authorities to dictate how an assessee should conduct its business. The court will not question the business expediency of a transaction, even if a third party also benefits.

Biocon Ltd. v. DCIT
35 Taxmann.com 335 · 2013 · ITAT
322
citing judgments

The discount arising from the grant of Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) is an allowable business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it is an ascertained liability, not a contingent one, and constitutes a revenue expense rather than a capital expense.

CIT v. Walchand & Co.
65 ITR 381 · 1967 · Supreme Court
314
citing judgments

The necessity and reasonableness of business expenditure, including the utilization of borrowed funds, must be judged from the perspective of a businessman based on commercial expediency, and cannot be dictated by revenue authorities. The onus is on the assessee to demonstrate the business purpose and commercial expediency.

India Cements Ltd. v. CIT
60 ITR 52 · 1966 · Supreme Court
247
citing judgments

Expenses incurred for obtaining a loan for the purpose of the assessee's business, such as debenture discount, bank guarantee charges, and stamp duty, are considered revenue expenditure. These liabilities, though potentially spread over time, are deductible as revenue expenses.

CIT v. Ankitech (P) Ltd.
340 ITR 14 · 2012 · High Court
202
citing judgments

Deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) cannot be taxed in the hands of a non-shareholder. The Supreme Court confirmed this view, affirming the Delhi High Court's decision in Ankitech.

Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT
98 ITR 167 · 1975 · Supreme Court
185
citing judgments

Interest on borrowed capital utilized for acquiring a capital asset is capitalized until business commences. Once business is set up, this interest is deductible under section 36(1)(iii) even if the asset has not yet been put to use, accepting commercial accounting standards in the absence of contrary statutory provisions.

DCIT v. Core Health Care Ltd.
298 ITR 194 · 2008 · Supreme Court
165
citing judgments

Interest expenditure incurred for acquiring capital assets, even if capitalized in the books, is deductible if for the purpose of business. Section 36(1)(iii) is a self-contained code regarding such deductions.

CIT v. Dhanrajgirji Raja Narasingirji
91 ITR 544 · 1973 · Supreme Court
154
citing judgments

The revenue cannot question the commercial expediency or wisdom of an expenditure incurred by a businessman, as the businessman is the best judge of their own business interests. The department's role is limited to verifying if the expenditure was genuinely incurred and was wholly and exclusively for business purposes.

Judgments on Section 40A(2)(b)

Talent Ahead India Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2836/MUM/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Apr 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Pawan Singhm/S. Talentahead India Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Dcit-1(3)(1), 201, Padmini Building, Tely Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Galli Cross Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 007. Mumbai – 400 069. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabct1959K (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Shri Mithun Shetty प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Beena Santosh, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 21.02.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 18.4.2016 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-3, Mumbai Dated 21.12.2015 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. In This Appeal, Assessee Raised Two Grounds & The Same Read As Under:- “1. The Ld Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case In Confirming Addition To Total Income Of Rs. 6,60,000/- Under Section 69C Of The Act In Respect Of Consultancy Charges Paid To Certain Key Management Personnel. 2. The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case By Not Allowing Credit Of Rs. 8,111/- For Payment Of Dividend Distribution Tax.” 2. Briefly Stated Relevant Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of „Recruitment Of Employees For Various Companies On Outsourcing Basis‟. Assessee Filed The Return Of Income Declaring The Total Income Of Rs. 30,77,670/-. Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & The Assessed Income Was Determined At Rs. 37,37,670/-. In The Assessment, Ao Made Addition Of Rs. 6,60,000/- U/S 69C Of The Act On Account Of Consultancy Charges Paid To Smt. Anita Agarwal (Rs. 4,80,000/-) & Smt. Shakuntala Agarwal (Rs. 1,80,000/-). On Finding That Smt. Anita & Smt. Shakuntala Are Not Properly Qualified To Render The Services, Ao Disallowed The Said Amount Totalling To Rs. 6.6 Lakhs. In The Process

For Appellant: Shri Mithun ShettyFor Respondent: Ms. Beena Santosh, DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 69C

ITO 4(3)(4), Mumbai vs. Sunvin Industries P.Ltd, Thane

ITA 2309/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C. N. Prasadआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./2309/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year:2010-11 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Income Tax Officer M/S. Sunvin Industries Pvt.Ltd. Room No.637, 6Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan Nadinaka, Mithpada, Behind Sainik Mumbai-400 020 Vs. Hospital Parol Rd. Bhiwandi, Thane-421 302. Pan:Aaecs 3087 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) राज"व क" ओर से / Revenue By: Ms. Arju Goradia-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से /Assessee By: Ms. Usha Gopalan सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/03/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 05.04.2017 लेखा सद"य सद"य, राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार/ Per Rajendra A.M.- लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 13/02/2015 Of Cit(A)-9,Mumbai, The Assessing Officer (Ao)Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Manufacturing Of Textiles & Handloom,Filed Its Return Of Income On 27/09/2010,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.Nil.The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S. 143(3) On 13.3.2013,Determining Its Income At Rs.90.88 Lakhs.

For Appellant: Ms. Usha GopalanFor Respondent: Ms. Arju Goradia-DR
Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)