Section 40A(ia) of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.36

Section 40A(ia) 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(ia) is CTO v. Swastik Roadways (3 SCC 640), cited in 36 of the 289 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 40A(ia)

CTO v. Swastik Roadways
3 SCC 640 · 2004 · Reported
36
citing judgments

The rigours of Section 40A(3) should not be invoked without examining the genuineness of the transactions and whether they were free from tax evasion, as the consequences for non-compliance must have a nexus to the object of preventing tax evasion.

J.K. Industries Ltd. v. CIT
18 ITD 226 · 1986 · High Court
23
citing judgments

If a company has both interest-free funds and borrowed funds, a presumption arises that investments are made from interest-free funds, unless the Assessing Officer establishes a nexus between borrowed funds and the investments.

Fakri Automobiles v. CIT
160 ITR 504 · 1986 · High Court
20
citing judgments

Payments made for purchasing stock-in-trade or raw materials are considered expenditure for the purposes of Section 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 40A(3), stating its purpose is to curb black money, not restrict business freedom.

S.P. Jaiswal Estates (P.) Ltd. v. ACIT
29 Taxmann.com 221 · 2013 · ITAT
15
citing judgments

Where the Assessing Officer fails to establish a nexus between borrowed funds and advances made, a presumption arises that the advances were made out of the assessee's own interest-free funds.

Pr.CIT v. Shalimar Pettel Feeds Ltd.
453 ITR 547 · 2023 · High Court
11
citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee.

IBM India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer (TDS) LTU, Bangalore
154 ITD 497 · 2015 · ITAT
10
citing judgments

Tax is deductible at source at the time of credit to the contractor's account or payment, whichever is earlier, and section 194C(2) applies even if the sum is credited to a suspense account.

Pr. CIT v. Shalimar Pellet Feeds Ltd.
138 Taxmann.com 124 · 2022 · High Court
7
citing judgments
Dhuri Wine v. Dy. CIT
83 Taxmann.com 20 · 2017 · Reported
4
citing judgments
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3 v. Swastik Construction
91 Taxmann.com 10 · 2018 · High Court
4
citing judgments
Gharmarbhai Chaudhary v. ITO
23 Taxmann.com 273 · Reported
3
citing judgments

Judgments on Section 40A(ia)

Shri Jignesh Kumar Shah, Bilaspur(Cg) vs. ACIT, Circle- 1(1), Bilaspur(Cg)

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 156/BIL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: : Shri N.S.Saini & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Judical Member Jignesh Kumar Shah, Vs Acit, Circle-1(1), Bilaspur Prop-Shah Jawaharalal Jethalal Jewellers, Sadar Bazar, Bilaspur(Cg) Pan No. : Ajgps 0536 G (Appellant) .. Tsednepser Assessee By : Shri Amit Maloo Jain, Ar Revenue By : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/01/2018 Date Of Pronouncement 11/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri N.S.Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Cit(A), Bilaspur, Dated 26.07.2013 For The Assessment Year 2009-2010. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.A.O.Grossly Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.43,30,500/- In Respect Of Agricultural Land U/S 54B Of The Income Tax Act,1961 & Ld.Cit[A],Bilaspur Grossly Erred In Confirming The Same Without Appreciating The Facts In Its Right Perspective. Your Petitioner Submits That Same May Kindly Be Deleted. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.A.O.Further Grossly Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.5,24,200/- In Respect Of Expenditure U/S 40A(Ia) On Account Of Advertisment & Ld.Cit[A],Bilaspur Grossly Erred In Confirming The Same To The Extent Of Rs.4,76,700/- Without Appreciating The Facts In Its Right Perspective. Your Petitioner Submits That Same May Kindly Be Deleted. 3. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.A.O.Further Grossly Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.50,000/- In Respect Of Misc Business Exps (Like Shop Exps,Printing & Stationery Etc) & Ld.Cit[A], Bilaspur Grossly Erred In Confirming The Same To The Extent Of Rs.10,000/- Without Appreciating The Facts In Its Right

For Appellant: Shri Amit Maloo Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, DR
Section 40aSection 54B

Sugam Construction Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., (OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 968/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 968/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" M/S. Sugam Construction Acit (Osd), Private Limited, Vs Circle – 8, 4Th Floor, Arun Complex, Opp. Ahmedabad C.U. Shah Collage, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-09 Pan : Aaccs 6759 H आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1612/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit (Osd), M/S. Sugam Construction Circle – 8, Vs Private Limited, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccs 6759 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri P.M. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/09/2017 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)-Xiv, Ahmedabad Dated 26.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.968/Ahd/2013:- 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Against The Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Upholding The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Ao Of Interest Expenses Considering As Excessive Payment To The Persons Specified U/S 40A(2)(B) Of The Act Of Rs.15,65,236/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 43BSection 80Section 80GSection 80I

The DCIT.Circle-8, Ahmedabad vs. Sugam Constructions Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1612/AHD/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 968/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 वष" M/S. Sugam Construction Acit (Osd), Private Limited, Vs Circle – 8, 4Th Floor, Arun Complex, Opp. Ahmedabad C.U. Shah Collage, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-09 Pan : Aaccs 6759 H आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1612/Ahd/2013 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"/ Assessment Year : 2009-10 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Acit (Osd), M/S. Sugam Construction Circle – 8, Vs Private Limited, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaccs 6759 H अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" य "" यथ" "" य "" य थ" थ"/ (Respondent) थ" Assessee By : Shri P.M. Mehta, Ar Revenue By : Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/09/2017 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)-Xiv, Ahmedabad Dated 26.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Assessee Has Taken Following Grounds In Its Appeal Vide Ita No.968/Ahd/2013:- 1. The Order Passed By The Learned Ao Is Against The Law, Equity & Justice. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & Facts In Upholding The Disallowance Made By The Ld. Ao Of Interest Expenses Considering As Excessive Payment To The Persons Specified U/S 40A(2)(B) Of The Act Of Rs.15,65,236/-.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri R. P. Maurya, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)Section 40aSection 43BSection 80Section 80GSection 80I