“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

Aptive Components India P.Ltd (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.), New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-3(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in respect of ground no

ITA 1129/DEL/2020[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2005-06] M/S Aptiv Components India Deputy Commissioner Of Income Private Limited Tax, (Formerly Known As M/S Delphi Vs Circle-3(1), Automotive Systems Pvt. Ltd.) Room No.-380B, C.R. Building P-24, Green Part Extn., Delhi- I.P. Estate, 110016. Delhi-110002. Pan- Aaacd0226E Assessee Revenue

Section 10ASection 143(3)

thus submitted by the Ld. AR that now when any part of the expenditure claimed by the assessee was disallowed u/s 14A, then as a consequence thereto the profits of the assessee eligible for deduction u/s 10A would witness a corresponding increase, leading to a consequent increase in the claim ... find substantial force in the contention of the Ld. A.R and are persuaded to be in agreement with him that pursuant to disallowance u/s 14A, the business profits eligible for deduction u/s 10A, to the said extent would stand enhanced. We find that the issue involved is covered

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

order dt 14/03/2014 was completed wherein Ld. JCIT, Range-1, Panaji [‘Ld. AO’] made four additions owning to; (1) disallowance u/s 14A ₹3,06,076/- (2) disallowance of demurrage charges u/s 40(1)(i) ₹3,69,331/- (3) disallowance of sampling & analysis charges ₹23,38,465/- and (4) addition ... order dt 28/12/2016 was completed wherein Ld. ACIT, Circle-1(1) Panaji [‘Ld. AO’] made two additions due to; (1) disallowance u/s 14A of ₹22,200/- and (2) disallowance of capital expenditure of ₹20,70,58,100/- u/s 37(1) of the Act as, a sum paid to State Govt

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

Concord Trexim Private Limited, Howrah vs. DCIT, Circle 13(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2161/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144BSection 14ASection 250

read with section 144B of the Act vide order dated 23.04.2021 making an addition of Rs. 1,93,43,567/- on account of disallowance u/s 14A in respect of exempt income . In the appellate proceedings, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by upholding the order of AO. 4. After ... Assessment Centre (NEAC) for examination of business loss. The assessee has not represented its case in the assessment proceedings and the AO made disallowance u/s 14A of the Act of Rs. 1,93,43,657/- which is obviously not an issue mentioned in the notice u/s

M/S. Akshara Abasan Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1638/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Dec 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 68

Rs.1,47,20,000/- as unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by adding the same to the income besides making disallowance u/s 14A Rs.3,36,784/-. 4. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer after calling for a remand report

M/S. City Union Bank Ltd., Kumbakonam vs. PCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeal for A

ITA 1126/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. S. Ananthan, F.C.A. &For Respondent: Shri. Bipin C.N., CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 17(2)Section 263Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(1)(viia)

making the following additions to the returned income: i) Disallowance of deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) - Rs. 195,82,10,780/- ii) Disallowance u/s 14A - Rs. 14,60,348/- iii) Disallowance of expenditure towards Corporate Social Responsibility – Rs. 10,68,54,396/-. 4. Subsequently, the ld.PCIT on perusal

The New Great Eastern Spinning and Weaving Company Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 5837/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 14A

principal grievance raised by the assessee is against the action of the Assessing Officer, as upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), in making/confirming disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D aggregating to Rs.1,18,68,867/-, over and above the suo motu disallowance offered by the assessee of Rs.17

R. M. Commercial Pvt. Ltd., (Earlier Known As Citrine Merchants Private Limited), Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2114/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 R. M Commercial Pvt. Ltd (Citrine Merchants Pvt. Ltd.).……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 113, Netaji Subhash Road, 2Nd Floor, Dalhousie, Kolkata - 1. [Pan: Aabcc3113A] Vs. Dcit, Circle-5(1), Kolkata………….…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 19, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Of The Addl/Jcit(A), Panaji [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Domestic Company & Had Filed Its E-Return For Ay 2017-18 On 26-10-2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.2,68,77,750/-. The Case Was Selected For Complete Scrutiny Assessment Under Cass & Notices Were Issued U/S 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act, Against Which The Assessee Filed All The Details Along With Books Of Accounts. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Of The Assessee U/S 143(3) Vide Order Dated 18-12-2019 On A Total Income Of Rs.2,79,27,779/- By Making An Addition Of Rs.10,50,029/- U/S 14A R.W.R 8D. R. M Commercial Pvt. Ltd 3. Being Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Ld. Cit(A) & The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Order Of The Assessing Officer.

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

assessee in the return filed of Rs.1,66,116/- (98900+67216). His submission is that it is settled principles of law that the disallowance u/s 14A r.w r. Rule 8D(ii) is to be made only on those investments which has given rise to exempt income and entire investments cannot ... 1811/Kol/2012 for AY 2009-10 dated 14.05.2013 was confirmed followed)” 8. In view of the above discussion, we find that the disallowance u/s 14A made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.10,50,029/- is not justified as the disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D(ii) should be made only

DCIT, Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata vs. Bentec India Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1776/KOL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2014-15 Dcit, Central Circle -1(1), Kolkata.…..………………….……….……….……Appellant Vs. Bentec India Ltd………………. ………..…………...……………………..…..Respondent Phase-Ii, Kasba Industrial Estates, Plot No.11, Kol-700107.. [Pan: Aabcb0647G] Appearances By: Pradeep Dung Dung, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Manish Tiwari, Fca Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 02, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 17, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.11.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-27, Kolkata [‘Cit(A)’] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2014–15. 2. The Appeal Has Been Filed By The Revenue With A Delay Of 186 Days. The Revenue Has Filed A Petition For Condonation Of The Delay. After Considering The Reasons Cited In The Petition For Condonation Of Delay, We Find That The Reasons Are Valid & Consequently, The Delay In Filing The Appeal Is Hereby Condoned & We Proceed To Dispose Of The Appeal On Merits.

Section 132(1)Section 133ASection 139Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 250Section 68

Rule 8D is concerned, the ld. AR submits that there was no dividend income and no separate expenses were incurred, therefore, the said disallowance u/s 14A is not justified. 7. Upon hearing submission of the counsels of the respective parties and on perusal of the material available on record

Basant Properties Limited, Kolkata vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1765/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 14ASection 250

submission is that the Assessing Officer wrongly computed aggregate disallowance of Rs.13,98,994/- with reference to total investments and thereby made further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.12,00,925/- without considering the principle laid down by various judicial forum that the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule ... u/s 14A of the Act but the Assessing Officer computed aggregate disallowance of Rs.13,98,994/- on total investments and thereby made further disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.12,00,925/-. We find that the Hon’ble jurisdictional Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT Vs Shalimar Pellet Foods

ACIT, Mumbai vs. Reliance Power Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 3989/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Acit-15(3)(1), Aayakar Bhavan, Room No. 460, 4Th Floor, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Vs. Revenue-अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By Revenue By Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement

Section 115JSection 14Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 37(1)

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in directing the AO to re-compute disallowance u/s 14A of the Act without appreciating the fact that the issue stands squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT 'D' Bench in the case ... quantifying this alternate disallowance. It is noted that there is merit in the claim of the appellant that the mechanism of working out disallowance u/s 14A rw Rule 8D cannot be automatically imported, while working out the disallowances under section 36(1)(iii), Section 37 and section

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Rms Diversified Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed and of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1714/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

Rs.3,03,781/- interest debited on that account for AY: 2017-18 was found to be not genuine and disallowed. Further a disallowance u/s 14A of Rs.56,515/- was made. (iv) In AY: 2018-19 the disallowance of Rs.30,53,044/-was made on account of interest payment

DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida vs. Rms Diversified Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed and of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1643/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

Rms Diversified Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

Appeals of the assessee are allowed and of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1530/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

Rms Diversified Pvt.Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Noida

Appeals of the assessee are allowed and of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1529/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

Rms Diversified Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

Appeals of the assessee are allowed and of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1528/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

Rms Diversified Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT Central Circle-1, Noida

Appeals of the assessee are allowed and of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1527/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Krinwant Sahay

For Appellant: Sh. Gagan R. Khandelwall, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 68Section 69C

Apar Corporation Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC6(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5232/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Prabhash Shankarapar Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit Cc 6(1), Mumbai Apar House, Corporate Park, 19Th Floor, Building No.5, Air India Building, Sion Trombay Road, Mumbai - 400021 Chembur, Mumbai – 400071. Pan/Gir No. Aabca1405B (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37(1)

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-2018. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Additional Disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D of` 15,91,063/-. 2 Apar Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 1.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case ... being expenses related to Immovable property while computing total income. Therefore, sufficient disallowance was already made by the appellant. Hence additional disallowance u/s 14A was not called for.” 2. The only effective ground raised by the assessee in the present appeal relates to challenging the order

Hincon Holdings Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2961/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosainhincon Holdings Ltd Vs. Ito, Ward 15(2)(1) Hincon House, Lbs Marg Mumbai. Vikhroli (W), Mumbai – 400 083 Pan/Gir No. Aaach2592M (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 45

value of investments 27,86,26,701 Close value of investments 27,86,26,701 Average value of investment 27,86,26,701 Disallowance u/s 14A being 1% average value of 27,86,267/- investment Total disallowance u/s 14A(A+B) 27,86,267/- 6. While computing the disallowance under ... ordinate bench, we direct the AO to exclude the shares held as stock-in-trade for the purpose of computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and recompute the disallowance. 11. Further we find that the Special Bench in the case of Vireet Investments (supra) has held that only

Srf Limited, Delhi vs. Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(1), New Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 5618/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Dinodia, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 80Section 92C

case. 62.0 The Hon’ble ITAT may be pleased to grant the allowance of depreciation on Goodwill of Rs. 10,77,290/-. XII. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,25,14,370/- 63.0 That the Ld. DRP and consequently the Ld. AO have erred ... consequently the Ld. AO have erred in law and on the facts & circumstances of the assessee’s case in computing the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.r. 8D(2)(iii) of the Rules by solely relying on the clarification inserted to section 14A in the Act via Finance