Section 144A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.272

Section 144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 272 (Power of Joint Commissioner to issue directions in certain cases) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 272 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 144A is CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd. (230 Taxmann 63), cited in 179 of the 176 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 144A

CIT v. Shivam Motors (P.) Ltd.
230 Taxmann 63 · 2015 · High Court
179
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act applies even if no exempt income is actually earned during the relevant previous year, provided investments capable of yielding exempt income exist.

CIT v. Lakhani Marketing Inc.
49 Taxmann.com 257 · 2014 · High Court
145
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, cannot exceed the actual tax-exempt income earned by the assessee during the relevant year. If no tax-exempt income is earned, no disallowance under Section 14A is warranted.

Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT
63 ITR 232 · 1967 · Supreme Court
142
citing judgments

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) cannot permit a new ground requiring fresh investigation of facts unless it remands the matter or requests a report from the lower appellate authority. The ITAT possesses the power to remand or remit cases back to the authorities below in appropriate circumstances.

CIT v. Holcim India (P.) Ltd.
57 Taxmann.com 28 · 2015 · High Court
138
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A applies only when exempt income is actually received or receivable during the relevant previous year. The provision does not trigger merely upon incurring expenditure if no exempt income materialized in that year.

361 (SC) and DGIT(Inv.) v. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd.
374 ITR 595 · 2015 · Supreme Court
114
citing judgments
CIT v. Maharashtra Sugar Mills Ltd.
82 ITR 452 · 1971 · Supreme Court
109
citing judgments

Expenditure incurred by an assessee carrying on a composite business giving rise to both taxable and non-taxable income is allowable in its entirety without apportionment. This principle led to the subsequent introduction of Section 14A of the Income-tax Act.

Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy v. ITO, Mumbai
101 TTJ 1095 · 2006 · ITAT
101
citing judgments

This case outlines the fundamental tests for invoking Section 263, holding that an assessment order is 'erroneous' if based on incorrect facts or incorrect application of law, or passed without due inquiry. For revision, both the conditions of being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue must be fulfilled.

Shri Mohd. Ayub v. ITO
346 ITR 30 · 2012 · Reported
98
citing judgments

Each assessment year is an independent unit for income-tax purposes, requiring the issuance of a separate notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act for a valid reassessment. Failure to issue such separate notices renders the assessment invalid.

Rafique Abdul Hamid Kokani v. Dy. CIT
113 Taxmann 37 · 2000 · Reported
90
citing judgments
Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner
1 SCC 405 · 1978 · Supreme Court
79
citing judgments

When a statutory authority issues an order based on specific grounds, its validity must be assessed solely by those stated grounds and cannot be supported or improved by additional reasons provided later in affidavits or other means. An order that is invalid at its inception cannot be validated by subsequent justifications.

Judgments on Section 144A

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

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

ITA 69/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 44A

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

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

ITA 68/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 44A

Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Raipur

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

ITA 67/RPR/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jul 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.67-69/Rpr/2020 (Assessment Year: 2015-2016) Manoj Kumar Agrawal Vs Ito, Ward-4(4), Raipur Shop No.1 & 4, 2Nd Floor, Sahara India Life Insurance, Millenium Plaza,Raipur-4920014 Pan No. :Aclpa 8619 C (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) धििााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, Ca राजस्ि की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. Dr सुििाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 05/07/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/07/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : These Three Appeals Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-Ii, Raipur, Dated 29.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. The Registry Has Pointed Out The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The All The Three Appeals By The Assessee. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Submitted That The Entire Delay Was Covered Due To Covid Period, Wherein The Limitation Was Extended By The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In The Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No(S).3/2020, Dated 23.03.2020, Therefore, The Delay May Be Considered As No Delay On The Part Of The Assessee & The Appeals May Be Admitted For Hearing. Ld. Dr Also Did Not Object To The Contention Raised By The Assessee. Accordingly, We Condone The Delay Of 66 Days In Filing The Present Appeals By The Assessee & The Appeals Are Heard Finally.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chirania, CAFor Respondent: Shri Choudhary N.C.Roy, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 44A

M/S Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Chennai vs. ITO, NFAC, Chennai

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

ITA 861/CHNY/2022[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 861/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2015-16 M/S. Sun Direct Tv Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of 73, Murasoli Maran Towers, Income Tax, Mrc Nagar Main Road, Non Corporate Circle 7(1), Chennai 600 028. Chennai. [Pan:Aaics7671L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ramakrishnan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi, Dated 26.08.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Original Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2015-16 On 24.11.2015 Admitting Total Loss At ₹.123,55,22,939/-. Subsequently, The Return Was 2

For Appellant: Shri K. Ramakrishnan, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. Boopathi, Addl. CIT
Section 143(3)