“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

Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2027/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for earning the said exempt income. However, the assessing officer has applied Rule 8D and computed disallowance u/s 14A to the amount of Rs. 7,37,78,541/- under Rule 8D(2)(iii) of the Act. 4. The assessee filed appeal before ... referred the decision of ITAT Mumbai and decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts on the issue that no disallowance u/s 14A is warranted when no satisfaction is recorded by the assessing officer. 7. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. Sub- section

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and cross objections are dismissed

ITA 2026/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Rahul Chaudhary

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil Tiwari & Ms. Palak MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT/DR

Section 115JSection 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 92C

Eaton Technologies Private Limited, Pune vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune

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

ITA 1160/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Pune03 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Smt. Vishal KalraFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar

Section 10ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 40

accepted the decision and filed appeal before the Hon'ble Bombay High Court which is currently sub-judice before Hon'ble Court. 06. Disallowance u/s 14A Further, it is noticed that the FAO has made disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.1,23,15,523/-but while computing the final total income

Chimanlal Maneklal Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 126/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms Neha Paranjpe,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

well as by the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee did not consider the interest expenses incurred by the assessee for calculating disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, although it had shown huge interest expense in comparison to its interest income and also the assessee had not brought on record ... used its own funds for investments capable of yielding exempt income. Therefore, the interest expenses needed to be considered while working out disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in accordance with Rule 8D of IT Rules, 1962 . Accordingly, the AO worked out the disallowance in terms of Rule 8D clauses

Chimanlal Maneklal Securities Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

ITA 125/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri K. Gopal & Ms Neha Paranjpe,ARsFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pamnani (Sr. DR)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4611/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

company and the AY 2020-2021, 2021-2022 & 2022-2023 documentary evidences submitted in support of the claim of assessee with regard to disallowance u/s 14A and Insurance expense claimed u/s 36 were examined in detail. The assessee has also opted for Video Conferencing which was duly arranged ... Income Rs. 149,11,76,360/- filed 2. Income as computed u/s - 143(1)(a) 3. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance u/s 14A 4. Variation in respect of issue of - disallowance-insurance expense claimed u/s 36 5. Total Income determined

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4610/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-5(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Aditya Birla Housing Finance Limited, Mumbai

ITA 4609/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ronak DoshiFor Respondent: Dr. K. R. Subhash

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 43B

DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Jay Chemicals Idndustries Ltd, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1916/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

assessment and made the following disallowances: (i) Travelling expenses Rs.4,12,026/- (ii) Commission paid to Non Resident Rs.4,43,18,315/- (iii) Disallowance u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D Rs. 10,84,214/- (iv) Late payment of PF & ESI Rs.55,71,595/- (v) Disallowance of Consultancy charges ... circumstances of the case and in law. the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in deleting addition of Rs.10,84,214/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D, without appreciating the facts of the case?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground

Jay Chemical Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

ITA 1740/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. BRR KUMAR (Vice President), Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37Section 40

M/S. Atlanta Infra Assets Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -9(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 298/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhryassessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Atlanta Infra Assets Dy. Commissioner Of Limited, Income Tax, 501, Supreme Chambers, Vs. Circle-9(1)(2), Off Veer Desai Road, 2Nd Floor, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Maharshi Karve Road, Pan : Aaccb7416Q Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Malav P. ShethFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Chandra Sinha

Section 115JSection 14A

heard the parties on this issue and perused the record. It is well settled proposition of law that the disallowance u/s 14A is not required to be made when the assessee did not earn any exempt income. However, the Ld D.R placed his reliance on the amendment brought into sec.14A ... Finance Act, 2022, wherein it has been stated that the disallowance u/s 14A is required to be made, even if the assessee did not earn any exempt income. The Ld D.R submitted that the above said amendment has been brought with retrospective effect and accordingly, would apply to the year

Shringar Developers Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 13(2)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4899/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar & Shri Deep Chauhan, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil Pushkaraj Ramesh, Sr. D/R

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 36(1)(iii)

partnership firm from which it claimed exemption of share of profit from the firms. The assessee was asked to showcause why disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 8D, should not be applied. The assessee I.T.A. No. 4899/Mum/2024 3 filed detailed reply explaining the capital contribution in partnership firms which is as under ... other partnership firm. 4.2. The contention of the assessee did not find any favour with the AO who proceeded by computing the disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D and computed the disallowance as under:- I.T.A. No. 4899/Mum/2024 4 Table -1: Proportionate disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act 1961 Sub Rule

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Circle-5(4), Mumbai vs. Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 2323/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shalini R. Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act by holding that the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act cannot exceed the amount of exempt income earned during the year ... Palm Beach Arcade property, following the matching concept followed by the assessee. 17. Ground No. 6 relates to the restriction of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee. 18. This issue is no more res integra as has been held

Wadhwagroup Holdings Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Central Circle 5(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed and that of the

ITA 1988/MUM/2024[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2025AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agrawal & Shalini R. Jain, A/RsFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 14ASection 14A(1)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 57

Pawan Tradecorp Private Limited, Dhar vs. ACIT-4(1), Indore

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 644/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manish Boradpawan Tradecorp Private Acit 4(1), Limited, Indore Khandelwal Complex, Dhar Road, Vs. Manawar, Dist. Dhar Dhar (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aadcp6640D Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2025 O R D E R

Section 143(3)Section 14A

observations that the assessee has made investment in the partnership firm and on average value of investment at Rs.76,82,917/- calculated the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.4,60,825/-. This amount included Rs.4,22,410/- on account of interest disallowance and Rs.38,415/- on account ... disallowance as per Clause(iii) of Rule 8D. 6.1 So far as interest disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.44,240/- is concerned I have examined the facts of the case in light of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of 3 Pawan

Blueview Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Odisha vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(3), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2510/KOL/2024[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.2510/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Blueview Agencies Pvt. Ltd. .……………………………………..….……….Appellant Lamtibahal, Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda – 768216, Odisha. [Pan: Aadcb6386Q] Vs. Ito, Ward-5(1), Kolkata….……..............................……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Madanappa Raghuvir, Cit- Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 26, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 27, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against An Order Dated 04.10.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return For The Assessment Year 2009-10 By Declaring Total Income Of Rs.1,890/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed U/S 143(1) Of The Act. The Assessee Derives Its Income From Share Dealing & Investments. The Assessing Officer On Examination Of The Balance Sheet & Profit & Loss Account Of The Assessee Found That Certain Expenses Which Were Disallowable Has Not Been Disallowed & Certain Income Did Not Disclose In Its Return. Therefore, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice U/S 148 & Subsequently, An Order U/S 147/143(3) Of The Act Was Passed By Determining Total Income Of Rs.27,650/-. Later On, The Ld. Cit, Kolkata-Ii Found That Requisite & Proper Enquiries Were Not Concluded Regarding The Identity

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 14ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 263

money of Rs.7,85,50,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. He also added undisclosed income of Rs.20,756/-, disallowance u/s 14A at Rs.17,140/- in the hands of the assessee by assessing total income of the assessee at Rs.7,86,89,780/-. 3. Aggrieved

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Esplanade vs. Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited, Prince Baktiar Shah Road

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1310/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

found to be not satisfactory and a sum of Rs. 29,91,00,000/- was added to the total income of the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 at Rs. 59,184/- was also made and expenses relating

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan, Esplanade vs. Jodhraj Finassist Private Limited, Prince Baktiar Shah Road

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1309/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy(Kz) & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Vgm Export, Vasco vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Margao

ITA 114/PAN/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji25 Feb 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 114/Pan/2023 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vgm Export Suvarn Bandekar Building, Swatantra Path, Vasco, Goa Pan : Aaafv6197P . . . . . . . Applicant V/S Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, Margao Range, Margao. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 25/02/2025

For Appellant: Mr P B Deshpande [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Ravindra Hattalli [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 40

u/s 143(3) of the Act wherein three bullet additions owning corresponding disallowances were made viz; (a) ₹2,25,000/- disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D2(iii) of Income Tax Rules, 1962 [‘IT-Rules’ hereinafter] (b) ₹37,27,447/- disallowance u/s 40(a) r.w.s

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke

Section 10(38)Section 68

circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 9,88,750/- on account of disallowance u/s. 14A, failing to appreciate the fact that the assessee has failed to prove that investments has been made not out of borrowed fund when ... income not includible in total income- Applicability of Rule 8D-Assessee a Scheduled bank carrying on banking business made investment-AO made disallowance U/s. 14A on account of investment made-Assessee submitted tht disallowance U/s. 14A was not warranted since investments was made out of its own funds and reliance