← 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

Addl CIT Ltu, Mumbai vs. Bajaj Holding & Investment Ltd ( Foremerly Known As Bajaj Auto Ltd), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 5510/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Renu Jauhri ()

Section 14ASection 80

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance under section 14A of the Act at Rs 9,02,59,225/-computed by a method based on Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules ... facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the disallowance under section 14A of the Act without establishing any nexus between the interest bearing borrowed funds and investments yielding tax free income. (d) Without prejudice to the above

Kamalnayan Investment and Trading Private Limited., Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 3593/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Vasanti Patel & Shri M.A.GohelFor Respondent: Shri Bhagirath Ramawat
Section 14ASection 250Section 263

part of interest expenditure is required to be disallowed as it has direct nexus with interest income. It is submitted that the disallowance under Section 14A of the Act computed by the learned Assessing Officer is excessive, unreasonable and unwarranted. 1.3. The learned CIT(A) and the learned Assessing Officer ... noted that the interest expenses of INR.40,84,496/- were debited to the Profit & 2 Assessment Year 2015-2016 Loss Account. However, no disallowance under Section 14A of the Act was made by the Assessee in respect of the same. Therefore, the Assessee was asked explain why disallowance under Section

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Dy Comm of Income Tax 2(1) (1), Mumbai

ITA 1761/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

DCIT Cir. 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1279/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT -2(1)(2), Mumba

ITA 1054/MUM/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT, Range 5 (1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed/partly

ITA 7269/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.7269/Mum/2019 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2015-16 M/S Mondelez India Foods Private Limited (Formerly Known As Cadbury India Limited), Mondelez House, Unit No.2001, 20Th Floor Tower-3 (Wing C) India Bulls Finance Centre), Parel, Mumbai-400 013 Pan : Aaac0460H ........अपीलार्थी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Range-5(1)(2), Mumbai, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Mumbai-400 020 ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Shri Hiten Chande Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing :18.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 234C

service fees paid to Cadbury Enterprises Pte Ltd. Singapore 29. Disallowance of service fees paid to Mondelez International Holdings LLC 30-31. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D 32-33. Allocation of expenditure at Baddi Unit-I & II 34. Levy of interest u/s.234C ... allow the Grounds of appeal No. 29 raised by the assessee company. 18. In so far as Grounds of appeal No.30-31 concerning disallowance under section 14A of the act read with rule 8D, we find that the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai in assessee's own case

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. CIT(A)-3, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the Revenue for the

ITA 5346/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

Jt. CIT (OSD) -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 3674/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1223/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the

ITA 1078/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

ACIT - 2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Central Bank of India, Mumbai

ITA 5878/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 2(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5664/MUM/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

vide order dated 26/03/2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act, disagreed with the submissions of the assessee and computed the disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D as follows, by placing reliance upon the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal's in the case

The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1, Vadodara vs. Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 529/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Rs.1,02,321/- as on 31.03.2013. A specific query was raised vide notice under section 142(1) dated 12.06.2015 as to why disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made, considering the nature of investments and exempt income earned therefrom. In response, the assessee submitted details ... addition to other investments generating exempt income. A show cause notice was issued requiring the assessee to explain why disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made. In reply, the assessee submitted a breakup of interest expenses and claimed that investments yielding exempt income were made

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

Appeals are partly allowed for

ITA 478/AHD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

specific query was raised vide notice under section 142(1) dated 12.06.2015 as to why disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made, considering the nature of investments and exempt income earned therefrom. In response, the assessee submitted details of non-current investments and ledger accounts ... addition to other investments generating exempt income. A show cause notice was issued requiring the assessee to explain why disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made. In reply, the assessee submitted a breakup of interest expenses and claimed that investments yielding exempt income were made

Pawan Edifice Pvt. Ltd., Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(2), Vadodara

ITA 477/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14
For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR
Section 115JSection 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36Section 68Section 80G

Rs.1,02,321/- as on 31.03.2013. A specific query was raised vide notice under section 142(1) dated 12.06.2015 as to why disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made, considering the nature of investments and exempt income earned therefrom. In response, the assessee submitted details ... addition to other investments generating exempt income. A show cause notice was issued requiring the assessee to explain why disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made. In reply, the assessee submitted a breakup of interest expenses and claimed that investments yielding exempt income were made

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ltu Circle 1 Chennai, Chennai vs. Carborundum Universal Limited, Chennai

ITA 48/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./ It(Tp)A Nos.2, 3 & 4/Chny/2025 िनधा@रण वष@ /Assessment Years: 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri R.Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P.K.Senthil Kumar, Addl. CIT

transfer pricing adjustment in respect of guarantee given for AE to 0.5% of the amount guaranteed. 3.5 The Second issue is regarding the disallowance under Section 14A. The Assessing Officer has disallowed under Section 14A read with Rule 8D @ rate of 1% of the annual average of monthly averages ... statistical purposes" Therefore, for the Assessment Year under appeal i.e., 2013-14 also, the amended Rule 8D will not be applicable and the disallowance under Section 14A has to be made as per the earlier Rule 8D. Therefore, the issue of disallowance under Section 14A may be remitted

Ban Labs Private Limited, Rajkot vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 202/RJT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.202/Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ban Labs Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Principal Commissioner Of Ban House, Dr. Vikram Sarabhai Income Tax-1, Nagar, Gondal Road (South), Rajkot Rajkot-360004 (Gujarat) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaacb8999C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri D.M. Rindani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, CIT DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 263

that assessing officer has not conducted proper enquiry, in respect of exempt income of the assessee and did not make the disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Rules. Therefore, first of all, we should examine that what type of enquiry was conducted by the assessing officer ... case of Shree Siddhi Infrabuild (P.) Ltd, [2025] 172 taxmann.com 232 (Gujarat), held that where Assessing Officer had made inquiries with regard to disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D during the course of regular assessments and had not made any disallowance for same, revision order passed

M/S. K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 685/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683 To 685/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ks Technologies Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahbubnagar Ward – 1 Pan:Aakfk4547L Mahbubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 3 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025 & 25/02/2025 Arising From The Penalty Orders Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 & Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For The A.Y 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

disallowance of expenditure on its own estimation and enhanced the Assessed income from Rs.51,600/- to Rs.16,00,340/-. I further state that disallowance under section 14A of the income tax act 1961 does not fall in any limb of "Misreporting" of income under section 270A(9) of the income

M/S.K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 684/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683 To 685/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ks Technologies Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahbubnagar Ward – 1 Pan:Aakfk4547L Mahbubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 3 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025 & 25/02/2025 Arising From The Penalty Orders Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 & Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For The A.Y 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

disallowance of expenditure on its own estimation and enhanced the Assessed income from Rs.51,600/- to Rs.16,00,340/-. I further state that disallowance under section 14A of the income tax act 1961 does not fall in any limb of "Misreporting" of income under section 270A(9) of the income

K S Technologies, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Manjunatha, G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.683 To 685/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19) Ks Technologies Vs. Income Tax Officer Mahbubnagar Ward – 1 Pan:Aakfk4547L Mahbubnagar (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 11/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 13/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Raothese 3 Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The 3 Separate Orders Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Dated 21/02/2025 & 25/02/2025 Arising From The Penalty Orders Passed U/S 270A Of The I.T. Act For The A.Ys.2017-18 & 2018-19 & Assessment Order U/S 144 Of The Act For The A.Y 2018-19 Respectively.

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Siva Prasad, Sr. AR
Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)

disallowance of expenditure on its own estimation and enhanced the Assessed income from Rs.51,600/- to Rs.16,00,340/-. I further state that disallowance under section 14A of the income tax act 1961 does not fall in any limb of "Misreporting" of income under section 270A(9) of the income