Section 40A2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is a crucial measure that prevents the owners or majority shareholders of any organisation from claiming excessive benefits for themselves or any parties associated with them.
This Section comes into effect whenever an assessing income tax officer believes that the owner/s of a business have made unreasonably excessive payments to a list of parties explained below.
The Act serves various purposes, including profiteering, siphoning off money that belongs to the organisation’s corpus, and claiming excessive deductions.
Note that individuals who run businesses are certainly entitled to claim expenses from their income under existing tax laws. It is only when large sums of money are transferred to ‘specified persons’ that Section 40A2 is put into effect.
The list of ‘specified persons’ is mentioned explicitly in the Income Tax Act; there are several listed entities, including close relatives, that attract the scrutiny of IT officials.
Under Section 40A2 of Income Tax Act, such a deduction is disallowed if the transaction fulfils 3 objectives –
Note that any such exorbitant pay-outs may be investigated by the concerned IT officer suo moto. If the officer determines that excessive or unreasonable sums have been paid in lieu of services provided, the transaction can be disallowed or prohibited.
There are 2 pertinent terms in this Act that need clarification. The first is the assessee of the organisation, which is paying exaggerated amounts as determined by the IT Officer. This individual must have ‘substantial interest.’
The second is a longer list of all ‘specified persons.’
The following scenarios reflect the policy of ‘substantial interest’:
Section 40A2 lists all parties who together form ‘specified persons’. They may either be individuals or enterprises. Let us take a look at these different categories of taxpayers.
Under this heading, Section 40A2 plays a seminal part. The assessee company’s director/s, individuals who come together as partners of a firm, any member of a HUF or ‘Hindu Undivided Family’ and all AOPs or BOIs belong to this taxpayer category.
Any close family member of such a director, a full-time or part-time partner or a member of a HUF will automatically be deemed to have ‘substantial interest.’
Furthermore, if any relative of the aforementioned parties has a stake or business interest in any other firm that may benefit from the assessee’s company, the concept of ‘substantial interest’ is present.
Examples: To cut through the legal jargon and understand the laws in simple language, 2 examples should suffice.
If the IT Officer determines that any payment made by Firm ‘B’ to Firm ‘A’s director is considerably high and do not represent fair market value, investigations may be launched.
‘Relatives’ of a company’s promoter or primary stakeholder are not mentioned in detail in Section 40A2. Drawing from Section 2(41) of the IT Act, relatives constitute:
The provisions of Section 40A2 are activated if these relatives have a significant stake or interest.
Example: Mr Sharma has his own business; he also holds around 22% shares of a firm owned by a close relative. In such a case, if Mr Sharma pays a sum to the latter firm, that amount is deemed a payment to a ‘specified person’, and section 40A 2 of income tax act, kicks in.
Any individual who displays an extremely significant connection or interest in an organisation managed, owned and run by a taxpayer is also considered a ‘specified person’.
Besides, any other business, AOP/BOI, or even a HUF that professes to have a serious interest in a third-party organisation is also a ‘specified person.’
The primary aim of Section 40A2 is to get rid of the nepotism which has plagued Indian industries for several decades. In 2018, Chanda Kochhar, the then-MD and CEO of ICICI Bank and one of India’s most high-profile women business honchos, was accused of nepotism.
The charge was favouritism in disbursing loans to relatives.
While the case is still sub judice, the names of Videocon Group’s promoters and her husband, Mr Deepak Kochhar came up in public. ICICI Bank had to remove Ms Kochhar from her position.