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)

DCIT 4(3), Mumbai vs. Kotak Securities Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 2096/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2096/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-4(3), M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No.649 1St Floor, Bakhtawar,229 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1232/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(3), Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Malathi Sridharan Assessee By: F.V. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order, Dated 24/01/2014, Of The Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking Etc.,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2010,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,96,43,36,790/-. The Ao Completed The Assess -Ment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 01/03/2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.4,08, 95,72,691/-.

For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)

Kotak Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 4(3), Mumbai

The appeal of the AO stands dismissed

ITA 1232/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & Amit Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2096/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 Dcit-4(3), M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. 6Th Floor, Room No.649 1St Floor, Bakhtawar,229 Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aaack 3436 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./1232/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Kotak Securities Ltd. Vs. Dcit-4(3), Mumbai. Mumbai-400 020. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Ms. Malathi Sridharan Assessee By: F.V. Irani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 09.03.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.03.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order, Dated 24/01/2014, Of The Cit(A)-8,Mumbai The Assessing Officer (Ao) & The Assessee Have Filed The Cross Appeals For The Year Under Consideration Raising Various Grounds Of Appeals.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Share Broking Etc.,Filed Its Return Of Income On 28/09/2010,Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,96,43,36,790/-. The Ao Completed The Assess -Ment,U/S.143 (3) Of The Act,On 01/03/2013,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.4,08, 95,72,691/-.

For Appellant: F.V. IraniFor Respondent: Ms. Malathi Sridharan
Section 14Section 143Section 14ASection 254(1)