“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

Srf Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal being ITA No

ITA 80/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

profits under section 115JB (MAT) of the Act, 1961, by making an addition of Rs. 1,17,18,925/- on account of enhanced disallowance under section 14A rwr 8D2(ii). 17. The AO, while completing the assessment, enhanced the book profit under section 115JB by adding back the disallowance computed ... case of Bhushan Steel [IT Appeal No. 593 of 2015] in which the HC upheld the decision of the Tribunal in holding that disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be added while computing book profits as per section 115JB as Explanation to that section does not specifically

Income Tax Officer, 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad vs. Shweta Manish Jain, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1594/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Ravindra, Sr. DRFor Respondent: None

Section 147Section 14ASection 69C

validity of the reassessment notice, the CIT(A) examined the matter and held that since the addition stood deleted on merits and no disallowance under section 14A had been made, the ground was infructuous. 5. The Department is in appeal before us against the order passed by CIT(Appeals) allowing

Bhisma Realty Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Central Building Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5694/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2018-19 Bhishma Realty Limited. Vs Dcit, Cc-1(4), 3Rd Floor, Sir Vithaldas Central Building Chambers, 16 Mumbai Mumbai 400020 Sanmarg Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 Pan: (Aaacb5995N) Appellant Respondent Present For: Appellant By : Ms. Neha Paranjpe, Ar Respondent By : Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Cit(A) 47, Mumbai Vide Order No. Itba/Apl/S/250/2025- 26/1078523862(1) Dated 15.07.2025 Passed Against Assessment Order U/S. 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”), Dated 03.02.2021 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Sole Issue Raised In The Present Appeal Is In Respect Of Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Rules’) Of Rs. 20,06,2346/- Against Suomoto Disallowance Made By The Assessee Of Rs. 94,147/-.

For Appellant: Ms. Neha Paranjpe, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

making disallowance under section 14A.In this regard, from the provisions contained in section 14A(2), we note that ld. AO cannot make disallowance under section 14A unless he believes that the claim of assessee is incorrect having regard to the accounts of the assessee for which he has to demonstrate ... employee benefit expense, all other expenses relate to its business activity of construction and therefore, would not have a bearing on the disallowance under section 14A. In respect of employee benefit expense, assessee has already taken into account salary of Rs. 90,000/- as an indirect expense while making suomoto

Jasper Industries Pvt Ltd, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1357/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad10 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

were adjudicated in favour of the appellant. Ground No. 3 The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the application of Rule 8D for disallowance under Section 14A, even though no income exempt under Section 10(34) or Section 10(38) was claimed as exempt and all dividend income received ... offered to tax by the appellant. It is submitted that the disallowance under Section 14A should be restricted to the actual exempt income earned, if any, and not on the total value of investments. Ground No. 4 The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground on the absence

DCIT, Mumbai vs. Hubtown Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3038/MUM/2025[2018 19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

Thus, the assessee claimed an additional loss of Rs.6,66,20,298/-. This enhancement of loss arose due to a lower disallowance under section 14A only Rs.34,60,505/- was disallowed in the return filed under 5 ITA Nos 1601 & 3038. /Mum/2025 Hubtown Limited section 153A, whereas a disallowance ... therefore, obviously the disallowance too cannot exceed the extent of dividend itself. The Tribunal itself in many such cases has upheld the disallowance under section 14A only to the extent of 2% of the Dividend Income or other exempted income even if Assessee claimed that no expenditure was incurred

Hubtown Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1601/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal a/w Shri FenilFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 132Section 132(4)Section 135Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 37(1)Section 69ASection 80G

DCIT Central Circle-1(1), Mumbai vs. Dentsu Aegis Network India Prviate Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6123/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri A.K. JawadwalaFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad (CIT DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CITT(A) erred in restricting the disallowance under section 14A to only those investments which yielded exempt income during the year, ignoring the fact that Rule 8D does nut prescribe such restriction ... restrictively, without appreciating that the Assessing Officer's approach was consistent with the statutory framework and CBDT Circular No. 5/2014, which clarifies that disallowance under section 14A is applicable in respect of investment which does not yield exempt income 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

Manju Devi Begani, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 789/SRT/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CA

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

assessee derived income from agricultural and interest income during the year under consideration. After going through the details the Assessing Officer made disallowance under Section 14A to the extent of Rs. 2,23,207/- and also made addition on account of bogus agricultural income to the extent

Brij Gopal Construction Company (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-3, Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4800/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 1Section 143Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)

have no relation with the earning of dividend income. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee's contention but computed the disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D. In our opinion, merely because certain disallowance is made under Section 14A rejecting the assessee's contention that ... facts in the case of M/s Espire Infrastructure Corporation Ltd. are identical. In this case, the Assessing Officer made a disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D at 3,20,962/- and levied penalty of 99,177/-. Since the facts are identical, for the detailed discussion in the earlier

JCIT, OSD, Delhi vs. Ace Insurance Brokers Pvt Ltd, Delhi

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 3063/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahayassessment Year : 2020-21 Jcit, Osd, Vs. Ace Insurance Brokers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi. B-17, Ashadeep Building, 9 Hailey Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aadca9488L Assessee By : Shri D.C. Agrawal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri D.C. Agrawal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 195Section 3Section 40Section 9

Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO, for short). 2. Heard and perused the records. The issue no. 1 concerns disallowance u/s Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D. The AO noted that the assessee had earned dividend income and had suo motu disallowed Rs.12,04,167 under Section ... 14A of the Act. However, the AO believed that the assessee incurred significant administrative and management costs in managing investments and therefore recomputed disallowance under Section 14A r.w. Rule 8D at Rs.1,02,45,641, resulting in an additional addition of Rs.90,42,474. The AO invoked Rule 8D because

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2890/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Crores, investments to the tune of Rs. 80.23 Crores made in foreign subsidiaries could not be considered for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 1.5 Without prejudice to the above, the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating ... that the investments in mutual funds made with growth option and not dividend option, could not be considered for the purpose of disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rule. ITA Nos. 2862 & 2863/Del/2018 2 That the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred

Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2889/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2863/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT, Circle-18(2), New Delhi vs. Niit Technologies Ltd., New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical

ITA 2862/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royita Nos.2889 & 2890/Del/2018 (Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11)

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, Adv, &For Respondent: Sh. S.K. Jadhav, CIT, DR

Section 10BSection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hcc Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6111/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh RavariaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 270A

During the assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee has made investments in its subsidiary company and has not voluntarily made any disallowance under section 14A of the Act in respect of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income. The Assessing

ACIT-15(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Hcc Infrastructure Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6110/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kantshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Hasmukh RavariaFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 270A

Asia Investments Pvt.. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 2 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeal

ITA 6209/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Respondent: Mr. Kalpesh Unadkat &

Section 14A

learned CIT(A circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A appreciating the fact that no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule appreciating the fact that no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule appreciating the fact that no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule ... Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 Maxopp Investment Ltd vs CIT (2018) 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC), it was submitted that disallowance under section 14A of the , it was submitted that disallowance under section 14A of the , it was submitted that disallowance under section 14A

Asia Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed partly

ITA 6353/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Unadkat &For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that no disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D can be made where no exempt income was received by the appellant during the year under consideration ... average value of investments towards administrative expenses, which amounted to *1,07,39,195 5.6 Accordingly, the Assessing Officer determined the total disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D at *17,25,25,167/- (₹15,01,06,025 + ₹1,16,79,947 + ₹1,07,39,195). 6. On further

Asia Investments Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed partly

ITA 4529/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

For Appellant: Mr. Kalpesh Unadkat &For Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14A

DCIT, Circle -3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Nord Anglia Education Infrastructure Private Limited, Visakhapatnam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the revenue, viz

ITA 314/VIZ/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Balakrishnan S.

For Appellant: 1.Shri Karnjot Singh KhuranaFor Respondent: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

upon the assessee company to put forth an explanation regarding the same. In reply, it was claimed by the assessee company that no disallowance under Section 14A was called for in its case as it had not earned any exempt income during the year under consideration. On the contrary ... also involved acumen of senior personnel, therefore, could safely be related to the earning of exempt income. Thereafter, the AO worked out the disallowance under Section 14A r.w Rule 8D of Rs. 15,42,448/-. 11. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 144B