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)

ITO, Ward 1(1), Asansol vs. Abu Zobair & Kazi Shari Ahmad(Now Asanso-1 C.S.Shop\U005Cu00Bf \U005Cu00Bf, Asansol

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue, is dismissed

ITA 318/KOL/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.318/Kol/2017 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Ito, Ward-1(1), Asansol Vs. Abu Zobair&Kazishafi Ahmad 6, Budhadanga Road, Asansol Lower Chelidanga, Asansol 713301. -4. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aakfa 6221 B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellantby : Shri Dulal Ch. Mandol,Jcit, Dr Respondent By :Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate सुनवाईक"तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25/08/2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue Pertaining To Assessment Year 2006-07, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Asansol, In Appeal No.107/Cit(A)/Asl/Ward-1(1)/Asl/14-15, Dated 05.12.2016, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 147/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act,1961( Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.03.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Justified By Holding That Cash Payment To M/S. Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd., Asansol, Is Not A Violation Of Section 40A(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2.Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Justified By Holding That Cash Payment To A Business Organization, I.E. M/S Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd., Asansol, Is Payment To Government For The Purpose Of Section 40A(3) Of The Lncome Tax Act, 1961. 3.Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Justified By Holding That Cash Payment To M/S. Asansol Bottling & Packaging Co. Ltd., Asansol, Is Exempted As Per Rule 6Dd(B) With Section 40A(3) When There Are No Rules To Specify That This Payment Was Required To Be Made In Cash Only.

For Appellant: Shri Dulal Ch. Mandol,JCIT, DRFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Agarwal, Advocate
Section 139Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 40A(3)

Dhrub Narayan Bhadani, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-39, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 28/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 28/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dhrub Narayan Bhadani..............................………………………………………...Appellant C/O. B.S. Sahay & Co., Room No. 431, Centre Point, 21, Hemanta Basu Sarani, Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Akdpb3207D] A.C.I.T., Cir 39, Kolkata………………………………………………......................Respondent 3, Govt. Place, Kolkata - 700001 Appearances By: Shri R.S. Sahay, Fca Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri D.Z. Chowngthu, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 08, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 10, 2017 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 11, Kolkata Dated 16.10.2015. 2. Ground No 1 Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Reads As Under: “The Ld. Cit (A) Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,05,130/- Being 50% Of Total Purchases On Estimate Made By The Ld. A.O. & Has Also Been Unjustified In Further Enhancing The Same By Rs. 4,05,130/- By Erroneously Holding The Same To Be Violative Of Provisions Of Section 40A(3) Without Appreciating The Fact That Section 40A(3) Was Not Applicable. The Addition Is Based On Surmises & Conjectures & Totally Against Facts Of The Case Itself As There Has Been No Single Instance Of Payment Exceeding 20,000/- To Any Party On Any Daty.”

Section 40A(3)