“disallowance u/s 14A”

DisallowancesSection 14ASection 14A2,938 judgments

The decision most relied on for disallowance u/s 14A is CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd. (223 Taxmann 130), cited in 579 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on disallowance u/s 14A

CIT v. Corrtech Energy (P.) Ltd.

223 Taxmann 130 · 2014 · High Court

579

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D is not warranted if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year.

CIT v. Gem Plus Jewellery India Ltd.

330 ITR 175 · 2011 · High Court

207

citing judgments

Disallowances made under various sections, such as for PF/ESIC contributions, result in an increase in business profits, and these enhanced profits are eligible for deduction under Sections 10A and 10AA. Similarly, gains from foreign exchange fluctuations directly linked to export sales are also eligible for deduction under Section 10A.

Cargo Motors (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT

145 Taxmann.com 641 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

The disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, particularly Rule 8D(iii) for administrative expenses, should only consider investments that have actually yielded exempt income during the relevant assessment year. Section 14A empowers the Assessing Officer to determine expenditure related to income not forming part of total income.

Sobha Developers Ltd. v. DCIT

125 Taxmann.com 72 · 2021 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A is a notional disallowance and cannot be added back while computing Book Profits under section 115JB for Minimum Alternate Tax purposes.

Tata Industries Ltd. v. ITO

181 TTJ 600 · 2016 · ITAT

citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the exempt income earned by the assessee. Even if interest expenditure is considered, it cannot be solely attributed to earning exempt dividend income as investors also consider potential capital gains.

PCIT v. J.J. Glastronics (P.) Ltd.

139 Taxmann.com 375 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Additions made under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, read with Rule 8D, cannot be considered for computing book profit under Section 115JB of the Act.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT

38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported

citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

PCIT v. Dipesh Lalchand Shah

143 Taxmann.com 419 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

Disallowance under section 14A cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income in the relevant assessment year. This applies even if the assessee has made investments in shares or has income from a partnership that is negative.

Judgments citing disallowance u/s 14A

DCIT, Circle- 17(2), New Delhi vs. National Fertilizers Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 4023/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2012-13 Dcit, Vs National Fertilizers Ltd., Circle 17(2), Core-Iii, Scope Complex, New Delhi 7, Institutional Area, Lodhi Road, New Delhi – 110 003. Pan: Aaacn0189N

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms Amisha S. Gupt, CIT-DR

Section 143Section 14A

allowed partly on various grounds and with regard to grounds No.7 to 9 in appeal of revenue, in respect of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r 8D, vide Tribunal order in Miscellaneous Application No.172/Del/2021 dated 07.05.2025, it was observed that no conclusive finding with regard to determination ... fact or law to the contrary. The law being settled that actual earning of exempt income gives rise to examining the issue of disallowance u/s 14A, we find the findings of the ld.CIT(A) require no interference. 2 4. The grounds No.7 to 9 in the appeal of the Revenue

Hdfc Asset Management Company Limited, Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai

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

ITA 3252/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Prabhash Shankarhdfc Asset Management V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Company Limited, 2Nd बनाम Income Tax, Circle – Floor, Hdfc House, 165 & 1(1)(1), 5Th Floor, Aayakar 166, H.T. Parekh Marg, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Backbay Reclamation, Marg, Marine Lines, Churchgate, Mumbai–400020, Mumbai – 400020, Maharashtra Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaach7614L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Niraj Sheth,ARFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154ASection 234Section 234ASection 234B

these ground are dismissed. 4. The only remaining ground no.1of appeal pertains to the addition made by the AO on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The assessee has assailed the addition on the ground that the disallowance was made at Rs. 45,204,000/- under section 14A

Jivansudha Vincom Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2322/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

Besides this the AO has also made the following addition/ disallowance: i) Disallowance of preliminary Expenses Rs. 16,320/- ii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Rs. 8,67,250/- 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein also the appeal

Badra Estates and Industries Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 2573/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Chodhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V, Ld. AdvocateFor Respondent: ShriBalusamy N, Ld. JCIT

Section 14ASection 250

Commissioner on this aspect is unsustainable. 3. On the contrary, the ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below on the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. 4. Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record, we observe from the record that the Assessee

Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground-7 of appeal is dismissed

ITA 190/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 43C

available on record. The observations of the Ld. AO in the assessment order regarding the disallowance under Section 14A are extracted hereinbelow: - “7. Disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax ACT, 1961: During assessment proceedings, following facts are observed: a. Assessee has suo moto disallowed Rs.35

Bennett, Coleman & Co Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 1(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, this ground-7 of appeal is dismissed

ITA 189/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Narendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R Singh, CIT DR

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 144(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 250Section 43C

available on record. The observations of the Ld. AO in the assessment order regarding the disallowance under Section 14A are extracted hereinbelow: – “7. Disallowance u/s 14A of Income Tax ACT, 1961: During assessment proceedings, following facts are observed: a. Assessee has suo moto disallowed ... also to be Equity shares – 730.37 740.32 considered for subsidiaries 9 ITA 189 & 190/Mum /2025 Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd Equity shares – 651.52 650.16 disallowance u/s 14A others of IT Act, 1961 in view Equity shares – 60.0 36.5 of circular no.5 of 2014 dated 11-02- Joint venture

ACIT (Ltu)-1, Mumbai vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 882/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon'Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri C Naresh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 115JSection 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

882/Mum/2020. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue read as under:- 20. The first grievance relates to the deletion of the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D. 21. Similar issues was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2037/Mum/2024 (supra). The relevant findings ... detailed discussion therein, this ground is dismissed. 24. Ground Nos.6 & 7 relate to the adjustment in book profit in respect of disallowance u/s 14A and addition of various provisions to income while computing book profit. 25. Since in the appeal by the assessee we have categorically held that provision

Jaypee Forge Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 4079/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Aditya Ramchandran, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 10Section 14A

have carefully considered the orders of the authorities below. It is an undisputed fact that while invoking Rule 8D for the computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the AO has considered all the investments made by the assessee. Before us, the assessee has furnished a chart of investments

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated hereinabove

ITA 310/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI GAGAN GOYAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period expenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80-IA and disallowance u/s 14A. Thereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have ... expenses 6,41,42,000 6,41,42,000 1,41,42,000 Deduction u/s 80IA 15,33,95,189 Nil Nil Disallowance u/s 14A 71,75,575 71,75,575 71,75,575 Service Tax Receivable 1,93,00,000 1,93,00,000 Set aside Excess provision

M/S Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation Ltd., Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed as indicated

ITA 309/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

account of claim of expenditure for State Renewal Fund, prior period expenditure, contribution to CDOS, incorrect claim of deduction u/s 80-IA and disallowance u/s 14A. Thereafter on the last page of the assessment order, it is mentioned that penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act have ... expenses | 6,41,42,000 | 6,41,42,000 | 1,41,42,000 | Deduction u/s 80IA | 15,33,95,189 | Nil | Nil | Disallowance u/s 14A | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575 | 71,75,575 | Service Tax Receivable | 1,93,00,000 | 1,93,00,000 | Set aside | Excess provision

M/S. Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 756/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Aug 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.756/Kol/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-2015) M/S Exim Scrips Dealers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Ward-5(1), Kolkata 412, Mukti Chambers, 4Th Floor, 4, Clive Row, Kolkata-700001 Pan No. : Aaace 6906 E (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) नििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Parekh, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 06/08/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 2. Shri Siddharth Parekh, Ld. Ar Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Ld.Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Only Issue In Assessee’S Appeal Was Against The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Confirming The Addition Made By The Ao In Respect Of The Disallowance Of Expenditure Earned In Respect Of Exempt Income By Applying The Provisions Of Rule 8D Read With The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. It Was The Submission That The There Was No Satisfaction Recorded For The Purpose Of Invoking The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. It Was The Submission That On Identical Circumstances The Coordinate Bench Of This Tribunal In Assessee'S Own

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Parekh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Somnath Das Biswas, Sr. DR

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Assessing Officer for invoking provisions under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules are as follows: “Reg: Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 11,84,981/- The assessee has earned dividend income u/s10(34) of Rs.48,04,057/- & LTCG u/s ... assessee submit reply stating – “That we have offered Rs.8,050/- in our computation being the amount of expense related to dividend and disallowed u/s 14A. In our opinion no other expenses can be categorized with earning of dividend.” The reply of the assessee is not accepted. The Hon’ble ITAT

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Infosys Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

clear that before applying the apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not correct. 16.4 The DR heavily relied on the findings of the assessment order and vehemently submitted that ... clear that before applying the apportionment, the AO needs to record satisfaction that having regard to the kind of the assessee, suo moto disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not correct. Further, as held by this Tribunal in assessee’s own case

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 881/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

ITA No.881/Bang/2023 ITA No.245/Bang/2024 Infosys Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT

Asst.Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3885/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

dismissed. 10. The next common ground in the captioned appeals by the revenue relates to the deletion of the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D. 11. At the very outset, we find that in AY 2016-17, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22 and 2022-23, there is no exempt income

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3884/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3883/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3882/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3881/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle2, 4 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3880/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I

Asst.Commissioner of Income Taxcentral Circle-2(4), Mumbai vs. Jyothy Labs Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the captioned appeals by the revenue are partly allowed and cross-objections are allowed in part for statistical purposes

ITA 3879/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistri, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT D/R

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 80I