← All Phrases

“disallowance under section 14A”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A2,288 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance under section 14A is CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), cited in 2,228 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance under section 14A

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

ACIT v. Vireet Investment Pvt. Ltd.
165 ITD 27 · 2017 · ITAT
882
citing judgments

No disallowance under section 14A can be made while computing book profits under section 115JB unless the expenditure is debited to the profit and loss account and satisfies clause (f) of Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2).

Judgments citing disallowance under section 14A

Dalmia (Bros) Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1145/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shris.Rifaur Rahmandalmia (Bros) Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle 7 (1), C/O Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal & Co., New Delhi. Chartered Accountants, Shiv Sushil Bhawan, D-219, Vivek Vihar, Phase 1, Delhi – 110 095. (Pan :Aaacd3525G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, Advocate Ms. Rinky Sharma, Itp Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2025 Date Of Order : 22.09.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Addl./Jcit (A)-7, Kolkata [“Ld. Jcit(A)”, For Short] Dated 19.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Raising Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Disallowance Of Vehicle Running Expenses Amounting To Rs.4,00,204/- Though Evidences Placed On Record. Thus, The Addition Made On Surmises & Conjectures Must Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Bindal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 14ASection 37

does not use the word "income of the year" but "income under the Act" This also indicates that for invoking disallowance under section 14A, it is not material that assessee should have earned such exempt, income during the FY under consideration. The above position is further substantiated by the language

Munjal Auto Industries Limited, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with the direction that the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with law

ITA 271/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Munjal Auto Industries Ltd. Dcit, Cir.2(1)(1) 187 Gide Estate Vadodara. Waghodia Dist. Vadodara-391 760 Gujarat. Pan: Aaacg 8588 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar Assessee By : Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/09/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri Yoeesh Mishra, Sr.DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 234CSection 250Section 251Section 270ASection 80G

that the assessee had not maintained separate accounts to demonstrate otherwise. Rejecting the explanation of the assessee, he proceeded to compute the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D at 1% of the average investments, which worked out to Rs. 55,36,814/-. After adjusting ... issued on 18.11.2022 and 14.10.2024. However, no effective submissions were filed. The appeal was disposed of ex parte. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance under section 14A by following the Supreme Court judgement in Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT [TS-5170-SC-2018-O] and confirmed the addition of Rs.55

DCIT-3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai

ITA 87/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarmaharashtra Airport V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Development Company बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), Limited Room No. 608, Aayakar 8, World Trade Centre, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Road, Mumbai – 400020, Parade, Mumbai – 400005, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Deputy Commissioner Of V/S. Maharashtra Airport Income Tax, Circle – 3(2)(1), बनाम Development Company Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Limited, 8, World Trade Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Centre, Tower 1, 8Th Floor, Karve Road, Mumbai – 400 Cuffe Parade, Colaba S.O. 020, Maharashtra Mumbai–400005, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aadcm9623M Appellant/अपीलाथी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Rushabh Mehta, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 57

PCIT vs. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (2022) 141 taxmann.com 289 (Delhi). Similarly, when there is no disallowance under the normal provisions no disallowance under section 14A readwith rule 8D under MAT provisions is sustainable as has been held by Hon'ble Bombay High