Section 40A(2) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.36

Section 40A(2) 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) is CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd. (103 Taxmann.com 57), cited in 306 of the 542 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40A(2)

CIT v. Tasgaon Taluka S.S.K. Ltd.
103 Taxmann.com 57 · 2019 · Supreme Court
306
citing judgments

The Supreme Court holds that the issue of payment of excessive price on purchase of sugarcane by assesses is no longer res integra. The court elaborately dealt with this issue.

CIT v. Saravana Spinning Mills Ltd.
293 ITR 201 · 2007 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

Expenditure for replacement of machinery parts qualifies as 'current repairs' under Section 31(i) of the Income-tax Act if it does not result in a new asset or substantially enhance the existing asset's life. For Section 31(i), the critical factor is whether the expense constitutes current repairs, making the general revenue vs. capital distinction less relevant for that specific section.

CIT v. Indo Saudi Services (Travel) Pvt. Ltd.
310 ITR 306 · 2009 · High Court
109
citing judgments

No tax evasion occurs when a company pays higher expenditure to a sister concern if the sister concern also pays taxes at a higher rate. This principle applies to disallowances under section 40A(2)(b) when it can be shown that the related entity is not benefiting from a lower tax rate.

Capital Bus Service Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
123 ITR 404 · 1980 · High Court
91
citing judgments

Depreciation under section 32 is allowable even if an asset is not actively used, provided it is kept in a condition of readiness or is put ready for use, as this amounts to passive user.

Climate Systems India Ltd. v. CIT
319 ITR 109 · 2009 · High Court
67
citing judgments
CIT v. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Ltd.
355 ITR 14 · 2013 · High Court
61
citing judgments

For Section 80IA and 80IB deductions, the profits of an eligible industrial undertaking or unit must be computed independently based on its actual profitability and market-rate inter-unit transactions, rather than applying a global profit margin of all the assessee's units.

CIT v. Kanda Rice Mills
178 ITR 446 · 1989 · High Court
53
citing judgments

The Principal Commissioner cannot exercise revisionary powers under Section 263 by merely stating that further enquiry is required or by simply setting aside the assessment order. To revise an assessment, the Principal Commissioner must establish how the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

PCIT v. Hindusthan Aeronautics Ltd.
143 Taxmann.com 357 · 2022 · High Court
43
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer must establish a proximate nexus between the expenditure and the investments before invoking Section 14A(2) and Rule 8D for disallowance. Failure to do so renders the invocation illegal and the addition liable for deletion.

Pr. CIT v. Gujarat Alkalis & Chemicals Ltd.
88 Taxmann.com 722 · 2017 · High Court
35
citing judgments

For the purpose of computing the deduction allowable under Section 80IA, the market price of electricity supplied by a captive power plant (CPP) is to be determined by adopting the rate at which the manufacturing unit has been purchasing electricity from the open market.

Mather & Platt (India) Ltd. v. CIT
168 ITR 493 · 1987 · High Court
30
citing judgments

Deduction for commission payments cannot be disallowed solely because summons served on commission agents were returned unserved, especially if the agents may have moved addresses years after the transactions.

Judgments on Section 40A(2)

DCIT, Cir-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S Vineetaz Exports Pvt. Ltd., Howrah

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 978/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Sept 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) Assessment Year: 2011-12 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-10(2), Kolkata…………………………….……..Appellant Vs. M/S. Vineetaz Exports Pvt. Ltd……………………………………........……….......……….…..………...Respondent 24/25, Moulana Abul Kalam Azad Road 41/A, Ajc Bose Road 2Nd Floor Room No. 206 Howrah – 711 101 [Pan : Aaacv 8640 E] Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, A/R, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri S. Dasgupta, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 16Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 7Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 4 Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 22/02/2016, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Is A Company & Is In The Business Of Manufacturing & Trading Of Textiles & Machinery Products. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 30/09/2011, Declaring Total Income At Rs.1,77,45,540/-, For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessing Officer Passed An Order U/S 143(3) On 10/03/2014, Determining The Total Income At Rs.6,30,05,406/-, Interalia Disallowing The Claim Of Expenditure Of Commission Paid To Foreign Agents For Exports, Ad-Hoc Disallowance Of 20% Of The Salary Paid To Employees U/S 40A(2), Disallowance Entertainment Expenditure & Expenditure Incurred On Foreign Tours, Disallowance U/S 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Etc. Aggrieved, The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Granted Part Relief.

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40Section 40A(2)