“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

M/S L.B.Wines Private Limitted, Ludhiana vs. Pr.CIT-1, Ludhiana

The appeal stands allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 84/CHANDI/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.84/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16) M/S L.B.Wines Private Ltd. Pr Cit-I B-1, 1446/13A Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ Chhoti Haibowal Rishi Nagar Vs. Ludhiana-141001. Ludhiana-141001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Jldlo-0809-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (Ca) & Ms. Muskan Garg (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. Cit-Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ludhiana-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2015-16 Vide Impugned Order Dated 23-03-2021 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 22-12-2017. 2. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments & Made Out A Case Of One Of The Possible Views. The Ld. Cit-Dr Also Advanced Arguments & Submitted That Ld. Ao Failed To Make Requisite Enquiries On The Issues

For Appellant: S/Shri Ashwani Kumar&Aditya Kumar (CA) and Ms. Muskan Garg (CA) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma – Ld. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194ISection 263

considered the replies of the assessee and after having satisfied with aforesaid explanation as furnished by the assessee, Ld. AO, barring small disallowance u/s 14A, chose to accept the returned income of the assessee. It could thus be seen that Ld. AO had raised a specific query on issues

TDS Management Consultants P.Ltd., Mohali vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

The appeal stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 62/CHANDI/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh21 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.62/Chandi/2021 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Tds Management Consultant Pvt. Ltd. Pr. Cit E-193, Phase 8-B, Mohali, Aaykar Bhawan, बनाम/ Vs. Punjab - 160071 Sector 17, Chandigarh-1. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aacct-5653-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, (Ca) & Ms. Shruti Khandelwal(Adv) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Smt. Kusum Bansal(Cit)– Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26-03-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. By Way Of This Appeal, The Assessee Assails Invocation Of Revisionary Jurisdiction U/S 263 By Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Chandigarh-1 (Pr.Cit) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Ao U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 22-12- 2018. The Ld. Ar Advanced Arguments With The Help Of Various Documents As Placed On Record. The Ld. Cit-Dr Justified Impugned Revision Of The Assessment Order.

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, (CA) and Ms. Shruti Khandelwal(Adv) – Ld. ARsFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal(CIT)– Ld. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194JSection 263

proceedings, notices u/s 142(1) were issued to the assessee which were duly been responded to by the assessee. The Ld. AR made disallowance u/s 14A and framed the assessment. 3. Subsequently, Ld. Pr. CIT, upon perusal of case records, alleged that due enquiries were not made

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad vs. Union Bank of India, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of revenue is partly allowed for statistical

ITA 316/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in remanding the issue to the learned Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance u/s 14A. The tax effect relating to this ground of Rs.3,04,06,123/-. 4. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate ... earned earned interest of Rs.16368,60,44,000/-. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain why the disallowance u/s 14A shall not be made on the investments. The assessee stated that it has computed as per the provisions

Union Bank of India (Erstwhile-Andhra Bank), Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 193/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, C.A. &For Respondent: Ms. M Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)Section 36(1)(viii)Section 36(1)(vila)

Income tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in remanding the issue to the learned Assessing Officer to work out the disallowance u/s 14A. The tax effect relating to this ground of Rs. 3,04,06,123/-. 4.1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate ... earned earned interest of Rs.16368,60,44,000/-. 4.1 During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to explain why the disallowance u/s 14A shall not be made on the investments. The assessee stated that it has computed as per the provisions

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Cements Limited, Rajapalayam

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

ITA 3234/CHNY/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.3234 & 3059/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2015-16 The Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Vs. Ramco Cements Limited, Of Income Tax, Ramamandiram, Rajapalayam, Corporate Circle 2, Virudhunagar District – 626 117, Madurai. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aabcm8375L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. & Shri J. Prabhakar, F.C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 09.04.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 17.10.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2011-12 & Order Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 16, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Since Issues Raised In Both The Appeals Are Similar Based On The Same Identical Facts, With The Consent Of Both The Parties, We Proceed To 2

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CiTFor Respondent: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &

decision of Special bench of Tribunal in the case of Vireet Investments Pvt. Ltd (165 ITD 27) which held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D has no application while computing the book profit u/s 115JB. Respectfully following the same, we direct Ld. AO not to make this adjustment u/s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Cements Limited, Rajapayalam

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

ITA 3059/CHNY/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand K Kalakeri, CiTFor Respondent: Shri S. Muralidhar, F.C.A. &

Hind Offshore Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 820/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.820/Mum/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) Hind Offshore Pvt Ltd. V/S. Dcit Circle -5(1)(1), 1 C Wakefield House, N.M. बिधम Mumbai Road, Ballard Estate, Ayakar Bhavan Churchgate, Mumbai 400001 Mumbai 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaack0362N Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी

For Appellant: Shri. Devendra JainFor Respondent: Shri Ajit Pal Singh, SR DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1. Disallowance u/s 14A (Rs. 515533/-.) Ground No. 2. Treatment of interest income under Non tonnage (Rs. 3531435/-)” 2 | P a g e A.Y. 2018-19. Hind Offshore ... vide order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 28/04/2021, after making the following additions: “i. Disallowance u/s 14A - Rs. 515533/-. ii. Addition on a/c. of interest under Non Tonnage business - Rs. 10680927/-” 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before

Bosch Global Software Technologies Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1696/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: and Smt. Pratibha R – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Nandini Das, CIT

Section 10ASection 32(1)(iia)

view that the disallowance may be estimated to meet the requirements of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly, we estimate the disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.2.00 lakhs and in our view, the same would meet the requirements of the provisions of sec.14A of the Act. Accordingly, we set aside the order ... passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.2.00 lakhs.” 13. In the above observations for Assessment Year 2008-09, there no disallowance was made by assessee this Tribunal deem it appropriate to restrict the disallowance to Rs.2 Lakhs

Hari Kishan Rathi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-14, New Delhi

ITA 2566/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Sh. Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Mukesh Kumar Jha, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

2917/Del/2024 Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Ltd. 7.3 Issue No. 4:Whether the disallowance u/s 14A relevant in AY: 2017-18 and 2018-19 is justified. 7.4 Issue No. 5: Whether the depreciation on building, residential flat at Jungpura, New Delhi is erroneously allowed by Ld. CIT(A). Issue

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2901/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2900 & 2901/Chny/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2011-12 & 2013-14)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

case of DCIT vs Viraj Properties Ltd reported in 156 ITD 72 wherein it has been held that the addition on account of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.Rule 8D being expenditure in relation to earning of exempt income to Book Profit u/s I 15JB is justified. (7) For these and such ... dividend amount received. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax, exercising powers u/s 263, directed revision of assessment, amongst others, in respect of disallowance u/s 14A. On such directions, a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 was completed on 23-09-2015, re-computing the disallowance u/s 14A

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Madurai vs. Ramco Industries Limited, Chennai

Appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 2900/CHNY/2024[2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Apr 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Mr.V.Justin, CITFor Respondent: Mr. S.Muralidhar, FCA &

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 263

case of DCIT vs Viraj Properties Ltd reported in 156 ITD 72 wherein it has been held that the addition on account of disallowance u/s. 14A r.w.Rule 8D being expenditure in relation to earning of exempt income to Book Profit u/s I 15JB is justified. (7) For these and such ... dividend amount received. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax, exercising powers u/s 263, directed revision of assessment, amongst others, in respect of disallowance u/s 14A, On such directions, a fresh assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 was completed on 23-09-2015, re-computing the disallowance u/s 14A

Supreme Nonwovens Private Limited, Chembur vs. ACIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

ITA 1384/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrinarendra Kumar Billaiya & Shri Anikesh Banerjeesupreme Nonwovens Private Vs Acit-14(3)(2), Mumbai, Roomno.455,4Thfloor,Aayakar Limited, Plot No.110, Supreme House, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 16Th Road, Maharastra, 400 071 Pan : Aaacs5921R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri K.Gopal a/w Miss Neha ParanjpeFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh–

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2Section 250

read with rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 amount to Rs.4,06,523/-.The Ld.AO had rejected the calculation of the assessee for disallowance U/s 14A of the Act and calculated the said disallowance to the extent of Rs.23,88,891/-. The balance amount of Rs. 19,82368/- {Rs.23

Procter and Gamble Health Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 328/MUM/2025[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2005-06 Procter & Gamble Heath Ltd., The Dy. Cit-8(2)(1), P& G Plaza, Cardinal Gracias Road, Room No. 624, 6Th Floor, Vs. Chakala Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Sir M.K. Mumbai-400099. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aaace 2616 F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Ajit Shah

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

income. 271(1)® is leviable for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 271(1)® is leviable for filing inaccurate particulars of income. (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A: Penalty u/s 271( (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A: Penalty u/s 271(1)© is not leviable on this 1)© is not leviable on this issue since

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. Manish Company Private Limited, Kolkata

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

ITA 181/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 68

exempt income was earned by the appellant during the year under reference, therefore, as per appellant’s version it has not made disallowance u/s 14A of the income tax Act.However, the Ld. AO made a disallowance of Rs. 18, 79,636/- applying rule 8D and following CBDT circular dated ... February 2014. The question as to whether disallowance u/s 14A can be made even in a situation in which the assessee has not earned any tax-exempt income has been a debatable issue, most of the decisions of different high courts and ITATs. are in favour of the taxpayer