Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.36

Section 40A(7) 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(7) is CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170), cited in 1,158 of the 268 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40A(7)

CIT v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation
366 ITR 170 · 2014 · High Court
1,158
citing judgments

Employees' contributions to welfare funds, such as provident fund, are not allowable as a deduction under section 36(1)(va) if deposited beyond the due date prescribed under the respective welfare statutes, even by a single day. Such delayed deposits are not cured even if made before the income-tax return filing due date.

Price Waterhouse Coopers Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
348 ITR 306 · 2012 · Supreme Court
359
citing judgments

Penalty under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars cannot be imposed for a mere disallowance, bona fide mistake, or inadvertent error, especially when relevant facts are disclosed in the tax audit report. The levy of penalty requires proof of intent to conceal income or furnish false particulars.

Allied Motors (supra); CIT v. Podar Cement Pvt Ltd.
226 ITR 625 · 1997 · Supreme Court
244
citing judgments

Amendments to tax laws that are explanatory, declaratory, curative, or clarificatory in nature are judicially construed as retrospective, especially if they are intended to remedy unintended consequences.

Kalpesh Synthetics (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
137 Taxmann.com 475 · 2022 · ITAT
198
citing judgments

A deduction claimed under Section 36(1)(va) for employee contributions remitted after the statutory due date but before the return filing due date cannot be disallowed during intimation processing under Section 143(1) if the issue is debatable. Such a disallowance cannot be made automatically based solely on auditor's mention of actual vs. due dates in the tax audit report.

100/223 Taxman 398/366 ITR 170 (Guj.) 3. CIT v. Merchem Ltd.
61 Taxmann.com 119 · 2015 · High Court
168
citing judgments

An amendment clarifying the disallowance of employee contributions under sections 36(1)(va) and 43B is prospective. Therefore, before such amendment, employee contributions paid before the due date for filing the income tax return are deductible.

378 ITR 443 (Kerala); and Unifac Management Services (India) P. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT
409 ITR 225 · 2018 · High Court
67
citing judgments

The beneficial provisions of Section 43B do not apply to sums covered by Section 36(1)(va), which are employee contributions to welfare funds. The scope of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) are distinct, meaning belated payment of employee contributions is not deductible under Section 43B, and only Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) governs their deductibility.

Foundry (P.) Ltd. v. CIT
78 Taxmann.com 47 · 2017 · High Court
64
citing judgments

An employer can claim deduction for employee contributions to provident fund or ESI under Section 36(1)(va) if these sums are deposited on or before the due date for filing the income tax return under Section 139, extending the benefit of Section 43B to such payments.

CIT v. Bharat 42 Zuari Cement Limited, Kadapa Aluminium Co. Ltd.
303 ITR 256 · 2008 · High Court
45
citing judgments

An assessee can file a revised computation of income during ongoing assessment proceedings, even after the time limit for filing a revised return under section 139(5) has expired. This revised computation can be submitted without filing a revised return.

Goerge v. State of Kerala
3 SCC 557 · 2007 · Reported
35
citing judgments

A later Supreme Court decision retrospectively clarifies the law, superseding earlier incorrect interpretations, as judges discover and find the correct law rather than make it.

CIT v. Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd.
253 ITR 791 · 2018 · High Court
32
citing judgments

An Assessing Officer cannot allow a claim for deduction that is raised afresh unless a revised return is filed. However, an assessee is not disabled from raising such a claim before appellate authorities if it was disallowed by the Assessing Officer for the technical reason of not filing a revised return.

Judgments on Section 40A(7)

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Mazda Concrete Products (P) Ltd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 118/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.118/Ctk/2014 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-2011) Acit,Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Mazda Concrete Bhubaneswar Products (P) Ltd., 3Rd Floor, The Grand, Rajbhawan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad स्थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No. : Aabcm 9883 H (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kolhe, Citdr निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, Fca Ar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 21/03/2018 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 23/03/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed This Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-Ii, Bhubaneswar Dated 12.02.2014. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.3,50,24,517/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Suppression Of Closing Stock. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 17,34,99120/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S.2(22)(E) Of-The Act. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law-As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.57,75,425/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Interest Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act. 4. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Law As Well As Facts In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 15,59,634/- Made By The Ao On Account Of Rent Paid U/S.40(A)(Ia) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B.Satyanarayana Murty, FCA ARFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, CITDR
Section 139(1)Section 139(5)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 40A(7)

Crest Composites & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1540/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1540/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष" Crest Composite & Plastics Pvt. Ito, Ltd. – 808, Vs Ward – 1(2), Abhishree Adroit, Judges Ahmedabad. Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1456/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito, Crest Composite & Plastics Ward – 1(2), Vs Pvt. Ltd. – 808, Ahmedabad. Abhishree Adroit, Judges Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 Pan : Aaacc 6333 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prakash Udeshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2018 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Dated 10.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.1540/Ahd/2015: 1. The Hon’Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Has Erred On The Facts & In Law By Confirming The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.1,45,617/-.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Udeshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR

The ITO, Ward-1(2), Ahmedabad vs. Crest Composites & Plastics Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1456/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1540/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष" Crest Composite & Plastics Pvt. Ito, Ltd. – 808, Vs Ward – 1(2), Abhishree Adroit, Judges Ahmedabad. Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1456/Ahd/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2011-12 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito, Crest Composite & Plastics Ward – 1(2), Vs Pvt. Ltd. – 808, Ahmedabad. Abhishree Adroit, Judges Bunglow Road, Vastrapur, Ahmedabad – 380 054 Pan : Aaacc 6333 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" य थ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" य थ" थ" Assessee By : Shri Prakash Udeshi, Ar Revenue By : Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2018 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/01/2018 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Mahavir Prasad:- These Cross Appeals By The Assessee & Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Dated 10.03.2015 For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.1540/Ahd/2015: 1. The Hon’Ble Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad Has Erred On The Facts & In Law By Confirming The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.1,45,617/-.

For Appellant: Shri Prakash Udeshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. DR

DCIT, Cir-1, Kolkata vs. M/S the Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue (in Ground No

ITA 667/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.667/Kol/2014 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 D.C.I.T, Circle-1 Kolkata Vs. M/S The Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. 10, Clive Row, Kolkata – 1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact 9780 F (Revenue/Department) .. (Assessee) Assessee By : Shri S. Jhajharia, Ca Revenue/Department By : Shri Kalyan Nath, Acit सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07/09/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04/12/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Revenue, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) In Appeal No.259/Cc-Vii/Cit(A)C-I/10-11, Dated 31.01.2014, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 27.12.2010. 2.The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.2,30,00,000/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 2(22)(E). 2.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 36(I)(Va) Read With Section 2(24)(X) In Respect Of Employee’S Contribution To Pf/Esi For An Amount Of Rs.1,32,86,580/-. 3.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,30,70,800/- Made On Account Of Gratuity Liability. 4.That, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Is Not Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,23,842/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Income Tax Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend, Modify & Later Any Grounds Of Appeal During The Course Of Hearing Of This Case.”

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, CAFor Respondent: Shri Kalyan Nath, ACIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36