Section 40(a)(ia) disallowance can apply to paid interest; recipient exemption claims under section 10(23C) need verification.

Section 40(a)(ia) was treated as an anti-avoidance disallowance provision requiring tax deduction at source as a condition for allowance, and it was held not to apply only to sums outstanding at year-end. Interest payments already made during the year did not, by themselves, prevent disallowance where tax was not deducted. For payments said to be covered by section 10(23C) approval, the recipient's statutory status and actual taxability still had to be verified because approval does not automatically create blanket exemption in every case. The matter was therefore remitted for limited factual verification on the approval and taxability of the recipient entities.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be restricted only to amounts remaining payable at the end of the financial year when tax was not deducted from interest payments already made during the year; (ii) Whether payments made to funds or boards claiming approval under section 10(23C) required further verification to decide if tax was deductible and disallowance could be sustained.

Issue (i): Whether disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could be restricted only to amounts remaining payable at the end of the financial year when tax was not deducted from interest payments already made during the year.

Analysis: The provision was treated as an anti-avoidance measure intended to compel deduction of tax at source as a condition for allowance of the expenditure. The interpretation that it applies only to sums outstanding on the balance-sheet date was rejected. The second proviso inserted by Finance Act, 2012 was held not applicable to the assessment year in question, and the view that the provision is confined to amounts payable at year-end was not accepted.

Conclusion: The disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) could not be avoided merely because the interest had already been paid during the year.

Issue (ii): Whether payments made to funds or boards claiming approval under section 10(23C) required further verification to decide if tax was deductible and disallowance could be sustained.

Analysis: Approval under section 10(23C) was held not to mean automatic total exemption in every case. The taxability of the recipient had to be examined with reference to the nature of the approval, the statutory conditions, filing obligations, and whether the income was in fact exempt in the recipient's hands. As the approval position was not established for all recipient concerns, the matter required limited factual verification.

Conclusion: The issue was remitted for limited verification of the approval status and taxability of the recipient entities.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of remand for verification of the recipient entities' approval and taxability, while the legal challenge to the applicability of section 40(a)(ia) on the ground of actual payment failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 40(a)(ia) applies where tax was required to be deducted at source, and the fact that the payment was already made during the year does not by itself exclude the disallowance; exemption-related objections must be established on the recipient's statutory status and actual taxability.

---