Section 14A of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.14

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 14 (Income not forming part of total income and expenditure in relation to such income) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 14 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 14A is CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (322 ITR 158), cited in 2,228 of the 15,875 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 14A

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

CIT v. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd.
313 ITR 340 · 2009 · High Court
2,118
citing judgments

Where an assessee claims that investments were made out of own funds, interest disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D may not apply if the assessee demonstrates the availability of sufficient interest-free funds to cover such investments.

Goetze (India) Ltd. v. CIT
284 ITR 323 · 2006 · Supreme Court
1,842
citing judgments

An assessee cannot raise a new claim or a claim not made in the original or revised return of income for the first time directly before the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings.

Radhasoami Satsang v. CIT
193 ITR 321 · 1992 · Supreme Court
1,695
citing judgments

The principle of consistency applies in tax matters, meaning a fundamental aspect found to be true in one assessment year should not be changed in a subsequent year if the order was not challenged.

Maxopp Investment Ltd. v. CIT
402 ITR 640 · 2018 · Supreme Court
1,596
citing judgments

Disallowance under Section 14A is not automatic and requires the Assessing Officer to record satisfaction before applying Rule 8D. Only investments yielding exempt income are considered for disallowance, irrespective of their strategic nature.

Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT
378 ITR 33 · 2015 · High Court
1,569
citing judgments

A disallowance under Section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income cannot be made if the assessee has not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year.

S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT
288 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court
1,484
citing judgments

Interest paid on borrowed funds cannot be disallowed merely because the assessee made interest-free advances, provided those advances were made for business purposes and commercial expediency. The Revenue cannot dictate a businessman's commercial decisions, but the assessee bears the onus to prove the business expediency.

CIT v. HDFC Bank Ltd.
366 ITR 505 · 2014 · High Court
1,261
citing judgments

When an assessee possesses interest-free funds sufficient to cover investments yielding tax-free income, it is presumed that such investments were made from these interest-free funds, precluding disallowance of interest expenditure under Section 14A.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. Woodward Governor India Pvt. Ltd.
312 ITR 254 · 2009 · Supreme Court
968
citing judgments

Foreign exchange fluctuations, whether gains or losses, are inextricably linked to the underlying business transaction and must be accounted for under the mercantile system. The Supreme Court also affirmed the standard accounting principle of valuing stock at cost or net realisable value, whichever is lower.

Judgments on Section 14A

Asahi Songwon Colors Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aaykar Bhavan, Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 710/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2017-18 Asahi Songwon Colors Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. 20 Block B, Times Corporate Income Tax, Park, Opp Copper Stone, Central Circle 2 (3), Thaltej, Shilaj Road, Aaykar Bhavan, Ahmedabad -380059 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaaca 9713 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Talati, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13.02.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 18.08.2023 Passed Under Section 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. Ground Nos. 1 & 2, It Was Stated, Relate To The Same Issue Of Disallowance Made Of Expenses Incurred In Relation To Earning Exempt Income, In Terms Of Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act. The Disallowance So Made By The Assessing Officer & Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Amounts To Rs.23,00,575/-. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 Raised By The Assessee Read As Under:- Asahi Songwon Colors Ltd Vs. Dcit Ay : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Talati, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr DR
Section 10(34)Section 10(38)Section 14Section 14ASection 250(6)

M/S Jayant Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 21/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 21/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Jayant Tradelink Private Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 7(4), C/O. M/S. Salarpuria Jajodia & Co. Vs Kolkata 7, C.R. Avenue 3Rd Floor Kolkata - 700072 [Pan : Aaacj6483H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, Fca Revenue By : Shri Nicholash Murud, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 19/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds Of Appeal, But Its Sole Grievance Is In Respect Of The Disallowance Confirmed By The Ld. Cit(A) Amounting To Rs.27,59,132/- Made By The Ld. Assessing Officer U/S 14A Of The Act. 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Submitted That No Exempt Income Was Earned During The Year And, Therefore, In View

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Jhajharia, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Nicholash Murud, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 14ASection 250

Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 993/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 993/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Tirumala Irons (P) Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Subash Agarwal & Associates, Vs Kolkata /Assessing Officer, Nfac, Delhi Advocates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite 213, 2Nd Floor Kolkata - 700069 [Pan : Aaact9984H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/04/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Hereinafter The “Ld. First Appellate Authority”) Dt. 27/07/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. For That The Ld. Cit(A) Was Not Justified In Passing The Order Exparte Without Affording Reasonable Opportunity Of Hearing. 2. For That The Ld. Cit (A) Was Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 4,81,00,000/- Made By The A.O. On Account Of Share Capital Including Share Premium By Wrongly Applying The Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Cit Vs. T.V. Sundaram Iyenger & Sons Ltd. 222 Itr 344. 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R
Section 131Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 250Section 68