“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 Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4699/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

ordinate bench in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA Novartis India Ltd. No.1629/Mum/2009 dated 17-09-2010) has confirmed disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of 2% of the dividend income and the same has been upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in ITA No.934/2011 ... aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in AY 2007-08 and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to 2% of the dividend income. 11. The next issue urged by the assessee in Ground no.7 of AY 2004-05 relates to the addition

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4574/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 4573/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2004-05

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

ACIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross

ITA 7799/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon'Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

notice that the co-ordinate bench in the case of Godrej Agrovet Ltd vs. ACIT (ITA No.1629/Mum/2009 dated 17-09-2010) has confirmed disallowance u/s 14A to the extent of 2% of the dividend income and the same has been upheld by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in ITA No.934/2011 ... aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue in AY 2007-08 and direct the AO to restrict the disallowance u/s 14A to 2% of the dividend income. 11. The next issue urged by the assessee in Ground no.7 of AY 2004-05 relates to the addition

Novartis India Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 7(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of assessee and revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are partly allowed in the aforesaid terms

ITA 7733/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J D Mistry, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kailash C Kanojiya, CIT-DR

Linguanext Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(3), Pune

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

ITA 2535/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2535/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Linguanext Technologies Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Private Limited, 401, Galore Tech Park, Behind Maratha Mandir, Bavdhan, Pune- 411021. Pan : Aabcl7322G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishore Phadke Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 17.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: This Appeal Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-6, Chennai [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] Dated 19.11.2024 Which Is Arising Out Of The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2014-15 Framed On 29.12.2016 By The Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Engaged In Software Development Business. Return

For Appellant: Shri Kishore PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

professional fees for patent drafting at Rs.15,69,849/-. (ii) Disallowance of translation expenses for software development at Rs.5,17,630/-. (iii) Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.1,02,574/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) furnishing details/written submission but failed to succeed ... claim that the expenditure incurred towards patent drafting and translation expenses for software development are revenue expenditure. So far 3 as disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is concerned, it is stated that even though Ld. Assessing Officer had failed to record any satisfaction prior to making the alleged disallowance

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 15(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5721/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.5721/Mum/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year :2020-21) Strides Pharma Science Limited V/S. Ito 15(3)(2), बनाम Aayakar Bhavan, New 201, Devavrata, Sector-17, Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020 Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400703 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Blrs03808A .. Appellant/अपीलार्थी Respondent/प्रतिवादी निर्धारिती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Nishit Gandhi राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Mr. R. A. Dhyani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing 16.01.2025 20.03.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / Order Per Renu Jauhri [A.M.] :- This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”] Dated 06.09.2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “Act”] For

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Mr. R. A. Dhyani

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14ASection 250Section 35Section 37(1)

view of the above, this ground of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 9. Ground No. 4 & 5: Disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.1,73,37,851/- and adding the same to book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. 9.1 Brief facts are that the assessee had earned ... work out the disallowance afresh following the decisions in earlier years. 9.4 Related ground on this issue pertains to the addition of disallowance u/s 14A to the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. This issue is also covered by the decision of the co-ordinate bench

Rays Power Experts Private Limited, Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 1086/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand Pareek, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Runi Pal, CIT- DR a

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

confirming this disallowance. 9. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law as well as on the facts of the present case in making disallowance u/s 14A of Rs. 69,374/- out of expenditure incurred in relation to earn exempt income. Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming this disallowance ... Disallowance of liquidated damages Rs. 2,43,04,000/-.  Disallowance of bad debt amount Rs. 1,03,60,140.  Disallowance u/s 14A is worked out at Rs. 69,374/-. 2.5 Aggrieved from the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who partly allowed

Reckitt Benckiser India Private Limited, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 11.1, Kolkata

ITA 2319/KOL/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

For Respondent: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, AR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1801/KOL/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2631/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Pvt Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 78/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarmaita Nos.78/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 &

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chopra, AR & Shri Rohan Khare, ARFor Respondent: Shri Guru Bhashyam, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 92BSection 92C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Reckitt Benckiser (India) Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-12(1), Kolkata

ITA 2681/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Section 143(3)Section 144C(10)Section 144C(13)Section 92BSection 92C

2 ITA No.78, 2681/Kol/2018 & ITA Nos. 2631/Kol/2019& ITA No. 1801&2319/Kol/2024 Reckitt Benckiser (I) P. Ltd., AYs 2013-14 to

Gyan Enterprises Private Limited, New Delhi vs. National E Assessment Center, New Delhi

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

ITA 2332/DEL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shribrajesh Kumar Singhआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2332/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2018-19 बनाम Gyan Enterprises Private National E-Assessment Vs. Limited, Center, Delhi-110002 Punjabi Bhawan, 10 Rouse Avenue, Delhi-110002 अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Pan:Aaacg0512G

Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14A

being the expenses incurred in relation to the above exempt income. The AO on perusal of the computation of the disallowance u/s 14A noted that the assessee had not debited any expenses incurred in respect of dividend amounting to Rs.45,50,35,455/- received from M/s Dabur India Limited which ... from Dabur India Ltd. 45,50,35.455 ------------------ 97% of Dabur India Ltd. dividend on 2,98,88,917 exempted income 9,75,502 Disallowance u/s 14A 3 Accordingly, the AO asked the assessee to submit complete working of disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D. In response to the same

JCIT (in Situ), Kolkata vs. Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are

ITA 506/KOL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 92B

1854/KOL/2016 (supra). The relevant part of the decision is extracted below:- "16. Now, we are taking the next common issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act raised commonly in ground no. 3 for AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14. We observe that the assessee suo moto made

Tata Consumex Products Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata.

In the result, all the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 748/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 92B

1854/KOL/2016 (supra). The relevant part of the decision is extracted below:- “16. Now, we are taking the next common issue relating to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act raised commonly in ground no. 3 for AY 2012-13 & AY 2013-14. We observe that the assessee suo moto made

Tata Consumer Products Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-4, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 747/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 92B

DCIT Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. Tata Consumer Products Limited, Kolkata

In the result, all the appeals of assessee as well as Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1183/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Mar 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Ashik Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arup Chatterjee, DR

Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 92B

DCIT, Cir-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Nse Clearing Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the revenue is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1758/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Gosain: A.Y : 2016-17 Nse Clearing Limited Vs. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Tax, Circle – 7(1)(1), Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai. (Respondent) Mumbai 400 051. Pan : Aaacn2642L (Appellant) : A.Y : 2016-17 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Vs. Nse Clearing Limited Tax, Circle – 7(1)(1), Exchange Plaza, Bandra Kurla Mumbai. (Appellant) Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. (Respondent) Pan : Aaacn2642L

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry, Sr. Counsel &For Respondent: Shri Alok Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 14A

assessee. 5.2 Before Ld CIT(A), the assessee contended that the assessing officer ought to have accepted the revised working of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee had not made such a claim in the return of income. In support of this contention ... also the Circular No.14 (XL- 35) dated 11-04-1955 issued by CBDT. It was further submitted that the revised working of disallowance u/s 14A was made in the light of decision rendered by ITAT in the assessee’s own case in AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. It also

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax -8(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Welspun Global Brands Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 2184/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan, Jm

For Appellant: 2.1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the LdFor Respondent: Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR

Section 14ASection 92BSection 92C

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) in correct in directing the Assessing Officer to delete the entire disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D(2)(iii), without appreciating the facts that assessee has made the investments to the tune of Rs. 1.38 millions which has generated ... investment were also made to generating the exempt income to the tune of Rs. 1.38 millions which should be considered while making the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii)? (Tax Effect: Rs. 2,345/-) TP issues: Grounds of appeal on the issue of excess share premium paid by assessee