Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.36

Section 40A(3) 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(3) is Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT (225 ITR 746), cited in 514 of the 3,278 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40A(3)

Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT
225 ITR 746 · 1997 · Supreme Court
514
citing judgments

Income is not taxable until it actually accrues or is received; hypothetical income, based on a mere claim not yet settled, is not chargeable to tax.

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.

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.

Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh v. ITO
191 ITR 667 · 1991 · Supreme Court
254
citing judgments

Section 40A(3) is not absolute, and its application considers business expediency, practical difficulties, and other relevant factors, while keeping in mind its objective to curb the practice of ploughing unaccounted money into the system.

Smt. Harshila Chordia v. ITO
298 ITR 349 · 2008 · High Court
187
citing judgments

Cash receipts from customers against genuine delivery of goods or services cannot be added as unexplained cash credits under Section 68. The case also provides guidance on non-disallowance under Section 40A(3) for business payments made in specific contexts like agricultural markets.

CIT v. Banwari Lal Banshidhar
229 ITR 229 · 1998 · High Court
162
citing judgments

When the Assessing Officer rejects the books of account and computes income by applying a net profit rate, a separate disallowance under section 40A(3) for cash payments cannot be made.

Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT
63 ITR 232 · 1967 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot permit a new ground requiring fresh investigation of facts unless it remands the matter or requests a report from the lower appellate authority. The ITAT possesses the power to remand or remit cases back to the authorities below in appropriate circumstances.

CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.
293 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
129
citing judgments

The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 concerning matters not subject to reassessment begins from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not examined during reassessment proceedings.

Anupam Tele Services v. ITO
366 ITR 122 · 2014 · High Court
124
citing judgments

Section 40A(3) disallowances are not absolute; genuine and bonafide cash payments, where the payee's identity is established and business expediency is proven, fall outside its scope, as the section's purpose is to curb unaccounted money, not disallow genuine expenditure.

Palam Gas Service v. CIT
394 ITR 300 · 2017 · Supreme Court
110
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) for non-deduction of TDS is mandatory, applying even to amounts already paid and not merely 'payable', based on a purposive construction of the provision, irrespective of the timing of payment or liability.

Judgments on Section 40A(3)

Infra Developers, Shivpuri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ashoknagar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 454/AGR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2014-15 Infra Developers, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Narendra Nagar, Shivpuri (Mp)- Ashoknagar (Mp)-473331 473551 Pan :Aabfi5834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rajendra Sharma, Advocate & Shri Manuj Sharma, Advocate Department By Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.08.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 16.10.2026 Order Per : Brajesh Kumar Singh: This Appeal Is Directed Against The Impugned Order Dated 26.03.2026 Passed In Appeal No. Nfac/2013-14/10151758 By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)] U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) For The A.Y. 2014-15, Wherein Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed Assessee’S Appeal. 2. In This Case, The Original Assessment U/S. 143(3) Was Completed On 14.07.2016, Assessing The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 9,50,000/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs.8,46,040/-. Subsequently, The Assessment Was Reopened Vide Notice U/S. 148 Of The Act Dated 30.03.2021 On The Ground That The Assessee Had Made Payment Exceeding Rs. 20,000/- In Cash In One Day Amounting To Rs. 20,19,400/- In Violation Of Section 40A (3) Of The Act.

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 2(24)Section 250Section 40ASection 40A(3)

M/S Sadana Electric Store, Lucknow vs. DCIT Range-6, Lucknow

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 283/LKW/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Sept 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharyita Nos.283 & 284/Lkw/2024 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 M/S Sadana Electric Store, 59, Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Chander Nagar Market, Alambagh, Tax, Range-6, Lucknow Lucknow Pan: Aamfs5053M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. K.R. Rastogi & Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.As. Revenue By: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 14.07.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: These Two Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Both Dated 22.02.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Partly Allowed The Appeals Of The Assessee Against The Separate Assessment Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) For The A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16, Dated 28.12.2016 & 5.12.2017, Respectively. As Both These Appeals Were Heard Together & Relate To Certain Disallowances, They Are Clubbed Together For The Sake Of Convenience. The Grounds Of Appeal In These Two Cases Are As Under: - “A. Because The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Appeals Had Grossly Erred In Allowing The Appeal In Part While Completely Ignoring That The Expenses Claimed Before The Assessing Officer. Are All Business Expenses That Are Fully Vouched & The Addition Made By The Learned Assessing Officer. Are Without Cogent Reason. A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. K.R. Rastogi & Sh. Shubham Rastogi, C.AsFor Respondent: Smt. Pratibha Singh, Addl CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 234Section 271Section 37