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)

Savita Oil Technologies Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT, CC-8(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1258/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1258/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Savita Oil Technologies बिधम/ Acit, Central Circle-8(4) Ltd. Room No. 659, Aayakar Vs. 66/67, Nariman Bhavan, Bhavan, M. K. Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai- New Marine Line, 400021. Mumbai-400020. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs3513J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya Joshi Revenue By: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. Ar) Shri Virabhadra Mahanjan (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04/07/2023/ (20/10/2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/10/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax-50, Mumbai Dated 24.02.2023 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The First Ground Of Appeal Of The Assessee Is As Under: - “1(A) The Appellant Submits That The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals) [(“Cit(A)”)] Erred In Not Allowing The Claim Towards Expenditure On Account Of Gratuity Representing Amount Actual Paid To An Approved Gratuity Fund Of Rs.83,69,981/- Representing Employer'S Contribution. (B) The Appellant Submits That Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That The Aforesaid Amount Of Rs.83,69,981/- Was Paid On Or Before The Due Date For Filing Its Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 To An Approved Gratuity Fund

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar/Chaitanya JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishna Kedia (Sr. AR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(v)Section 40A(7)Section 43BSection 80GSection 80I

Itcot Limited, Chennai vs. ITO Coporate Ward 1(1) Chennai, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 779/CHNY/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.779/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Itcot Limited, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 50A, Greams Road, Corporate Ward 1(1), Chennai 600 006. Chennai. [Pan:Aaaci0915P] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. Bernadetle Lily, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 16.03.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Filed With A Delay Of 46 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In Support Of An Affidavit Mentioning The Detailed Reasons For Delay In Filing The Appeal. By Referring To The Above

For Appellant: Ms. Bernadetle Lily, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

West-Bengal Power Development Corporate Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 195/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Jul 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2010-11 The West Bengal Power Development Dcit, Circle-4(2), Corporation Limited Kolkata Bidyut Unnayan Bhaban, Plot No. Vs. 3/C, Block La, Sector-Iii, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700098. Pan: Aabct 3027 C (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : Shri Anuj Musaddi, Ca & Shri Rishav Narendra, Ar Respondent By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.01.2023 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1(A). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Upholding Additions/Disallowances Made By The Ld. Ao Under The Provisions Of The Act In The Order Under Section 143(3)/ 263 Of The Act. 1(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Considering The Submission Dated 16 August 2018 Filed By The Appellant Before The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata & Passing The Order Stating That The Appellant Has Not Complied With The Notices Of Hearing, Thereby Tendering The Order Unjust & Illegal: 2(A). Without Prejudice To Ground No. 1(B) Above, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals) Grossly Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs 21,30,15,951 Made By The Ld. Ao Under Section 32(1) Of The Act On Account Of Non-Production Of Documentary Evidences For Capitalization Of Capital Spares, Office Equipment Or Building Township. 2(B). On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals)/ Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Not Considering That The Aforesaid

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Musaddi, CA & Shri Rishav Narendra, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, CIT, DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 2(24)(x)Section 32(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)Section 43B