“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

ITO, New Delhi vs. M/S. Marathon Finlease Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4766/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 68

professional charges Rs.13,00,000/- (ii) Disallowance of Commission of Rs.3,50,000/- (iii) Disallowance of fee paid to ROC Rs.31,654/- (iv) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.s Rule 8D of Rs.2.06,333/- (iv) Disallowance out of interest expenses of Rs.1,52,582/- (v) Additions u/s

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai vs. Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai

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

ITA 1663/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.R. VijayaraghavanFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

subject AY and in proportion to the number of months /days in force, which the TPO has failed to do so. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs. 18,82,33,000: 3.1. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in upholding disallowance u/s 14A despite the fact that Appellant had not earned ... agreeable to the contention of the assessee and sought to invoke Rule 8D. The AO is noted to have computed disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.18,82,33,000/- being 1% of the average value of investments held by the assessee. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the CBDT

Ashok Leyland Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corp Circle 8(1) Ltu - II, Chennai

ITA 1402/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1402/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Dcit, Ncc-8(1), Ltu-Ii, Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1663/Chny/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2019-20 The Dcit, Ncc-8, Chennai. (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., No.1, Sardar Patel Road, Guindy, Chennai-600 032. [Pan: Aaaса 4651 L] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Assessee By : Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate Department By : Ms.Ann Marry Baby, Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.06.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: These Are Cross-Appeals Preferred By The Assessee As Well As The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax

For Appellant: Mr.R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Ann Marry Baby, CIT

Section 14ASection 92C

subject AY and in proportion to the number of months /days in force, which the TPO has failed to do so. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D - Rs.18,82,33,000: 3. 1. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in upholding disallowance u/s 14A despite the fact that Appellant had not earned ... agreeable to the contention of the assessee and sought to invoke Rule 8D. The AO is noted to have computed disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.18,82,33,000/- being 1% of the average value of investments held by the assessee. On appeal the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the CBDT

Altfort Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 834/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 14ASection 250

this amount was properly done as investment in unlisted equities. The second addition is on account of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs. 35,23,210/-. 2 Altfort Merchants Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 Aggrieved with this action of Ld. AO the assessee carried the matter in appeal where also

DCIT, Delhi vs. Punjab National Bank, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 2948/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 32(1)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 43B

taxable Page 15 of 23 ITA No. 2948/DEL/2024 [A.Y. 2017-18] The Dy. CI.T. Vs. Punjab National Bank income and consequently, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made even where some tax-fee income is received incidentally. 20. It is submitted that the Bank has not incurred any interest expenditure

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 466/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamblearvind Limited, Dcit Vs. Naroda Road, Nfac, Delhi Ahmedabad-380025 (Dcit, Circle 1(1)(1), [Pan : Aabca 2398 D] Ahmedabad) Arvind Limited, Vs. Acit, Circle 1(1)(1), Naroda Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380025 [Pan : Aabca 2398 D]

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

exempt income during the year under consideration instead of deleting the entire disallowance made by the Assessing Officer as appellant has already made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act while filling Return of Income. ITA No. 349 & 466/Ahd/2024 Assessee : Arvind Limited Asst. Year ... permissible under the income-tax Act unless a liability has either been paid or arisen during the year?" Ground No. 1 – Disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D 7. The brief facts relating to this issue are that the Assessing Officer made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting

Arvind Limited, Ahmedabad vs. NFAC, Delhi Present Jurisdiction the DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 349/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, AR &For Respondent: Shri Prathvi Raj Meena, CIT-DR &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward -17(3), Hyderabad

ITA 500/HYD/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri Pawan KumarFor Respondent: Shri B. Balakrishna -CIT-

Section 11USection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234BSection 56

assessee company had disclosed an investment in shares of Rs.31.50 crores but it had not offered on a suo moto basis any disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. On being queried, it was the claim of the assessee company that as it had not received any dividend income during ... favour with the aforesaid explanation of the assessee company, and drawing support from the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 (F.No.225/182/2013-ITA-III), dt.11.02.2014 worked out the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(iii) of Rs.15.75 lacs. 4 Thermodyne Dynamics Private Limited Vs. ITO 4. On a perusal of the record

Wilson Engineering Industries Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 1(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 518/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 37(1)Section 43B

submitted response with computation of taxable income, copy of return, copy of balance sheet, details of export sales etc. The AO has made disallowance u/s 14A by holding that during AY 2017-18 the assessee has earned exempt income. The AO has also made disallowance of PF & ESI made disallowance ... dissatisfied the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld. A.R in course of submission made, the AO has made wrong by disallowing u/s 14A ignoring the decision passed by Mumbai Bench where in it has been held that the disallowance can be restricted to the extent of exempt

DCIT, Central Circle 8(4), Mumbai vs. Aurum Platz Private Limited, Navi Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2333/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon'Ble & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Meet Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav, CIT, D/R

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 69C

after computing the business income at Rs.20,10,52,047/- , addition u/s 69C of the Act Rs.20,00,000/- and disallowance u/s 14A Rs.1,96,90,874/-. The additions travelled up to the Tribunal and the Tribunal in ITA Nos.2004 & 2005/Mum/2021 vide order dated 20/06/2023, has deleted the additions ... amounting to Rs.1,96,90,874/- to Rs.3,62,500/-. 5. Since the substantive additions have been deleted and the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act has been estimated at Rs.3,62,500/-, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied by the AO on such disallowance. 6. Considering

Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd., Mohali vs. The Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range 1, Chandigarh

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 316/CHANDI/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No. 316/Chandi/2022 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Punjab Chemicals & Crop Protection Ltd. Addl. Cit बनाम/ Milestone-18, Ambala-Kalka Road, Range-1 Vpo Bhankharpur, Derabassi Chandigarh Vs. District Sas Nagar Mohali-140201 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacp-9904-H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Anil Khanna (Ca). – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24-06-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01-07-2025 आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Khanna (CA). – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Ms. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

appeal, however, the grounds as urged by Ld. AR are – (i) Disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) for Rs.43.68 Lacs; (ii) Disallowance u/s 14A for Rs.0.23 Lacs; (iii) Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment on Corporate Guarantee; (iv) Set-off of brought forward losses. These grounds are adjudicated as under ... year. This being the case, the impugned disallowance stands deleted. The depreciation as allowed to the assessee upon capitalization would stand reversed. 3. Disallowance u/s 14A The Ld. AO computed disallowance u/s 14A @1% of average investment which worked out to be Rs.0.23 Lacs. The Ld. DRP confirmed the same

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

ITA 111/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

India Ltd. (supra) where it is held that “5.***** The last grievance under these appeal is of the assessee as to whether the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below disallowance suo motu voluntarily made by the assessee in the return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has claimed ... that if his several contentions are favourably considered by tribunal keeping in view legal position, the disallowance u/s 14A can fall below the voluntary disallowance made by the assessee sun motu in return of income filed with the Revenue. The assessee has relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 110/MUM/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 5750/MUM/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh S. Joshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

DCIT 2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5749/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

Bajaj Electricals Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 2(1), Mumbai

Accordingly we remit the impugned issue back to the AO with similar directions. The grounds raised by the assessee in this regard are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4172/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jul 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Respondent: Shri Rakesh Ranjan-CIT-DR &

Section 115Section 14ASection 250

Compact Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle- 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 279/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 271ASection 274Section 69

document made by the assessee, assessed total income of the assessee as at Rs. 7,47,00,000/- as the AO made disallowance u/s 14A and also made addition unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. The AO has also started penalty proceedings u/s 274 read with Section 271AAC

R C Advisors Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 214/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Geetha Rani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 14A

prosecution by the assessee. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and has filed several grounds of appeal, but the main ground of appeal is disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) by dismissing the appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee ... also e-verified and therefore same can be treated as return of income. The AO issued a show cause notice as to why disallowance u/s. 14A cannot be made which was not replied by the assessee and therefore order u/s. 144 was Page 3 of 5 passed making disallowance u/s

Protean E Gov Technologies Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 976/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

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

Section 14ASection 40

Appellant has valid and justifiable grounds for contesting the impugned order. The below grounds are without prejudice to each other: 2:0 Additional Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w. Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 2:1 The Learned CIT(A) has erred in disallowing an additional

ACIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Essel Utilities Distribution Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 2725/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant ()

Section 10Section 11Section 115JSection 12Section 14A

case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made to book profit on account of disallowance u/s 14A holding that section 14A is not applicable in the case of MAT provision u/s 115JB of the Act, when clause (1) of Explanation to Sec 115JB