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

Tech Mahindra Business Services Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1256/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalआअसं.1256/मुं/ 2022 (िन.व.2017-18) Tech Mahindra Business Services Limited. Ground Floor, Spectrum Towers, Mindspace, Chincholi Bunder Link Road, Malad West, Mumbai – 400 064. Pan: Aabch-8136-L ...... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 13(3)(2), Room No.229, 2Nd Floor, Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai – 400 020. ..... "ितवादी/Respondent अपीलाथ" "ारा/ Appellant By : Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate With Shri Harsh Kapadia, Advocate "ितवादी "ारा/Respondent By : Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.Ar सुनवाई क" ितिथ/ Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2023 घोषणा क" ितिथ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/07/2023 आदेश आदेश/ Order आदेश आदेश Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In Short ‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 30/03/2022, For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Raised Solitary Ground Assailing Disallowance Made U/S. 14A Of Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules, 1962 (In Short ‘The Rules’) Amounting To Rs.80,08,567/-. The Assessee Vide Application Dated 13/09/2022 Has Raised An Additional Ground

For Appellant: Shri J.D,Mistri, Sr. Advocate with Shri Harsh Kapadia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati, Sr.AR
Section 14A

E H Building Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Corporate Ward 2(1), Chennai

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

ITA 459/CHNY/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Jul 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Raoआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.459/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Eh Building Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 1C, First Floor, Gowri Chitra Corporate Ward 2(1), Garden Complex, 88/4, Arcot Road, Chennai. Vadapalani, Chennai 600 026. [Pan:Aabce8062E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri G. Tarun, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 13.07.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 19.07.2023 आदेश /O R D E R This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 15.02.2023 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Has Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2012-13 On 30.09.2012 With Returned Income Of ₹.Nil. The Return Of Income Was Processed Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] Dated 15.03.2013. Thereafter, The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Nd Notice Under 2

For Appellant: Shri G. Tarun, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

Samco Securities Limited, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1328/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhsamco Securities Ltd. Vs. National Faceless Appeal A/1004, Naman Midtown, Centre (Nfac) Senapati Bapat Road, Prabhadevi Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aaics2455A Appellant .. Respondent [ Appellant By : None Respondent By : Ram Krishna Kedia Date Of Hearing 06.07.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 18.07.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): This Appeal Filed By The Assesse Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac, Delhi, Dated 20.02.2023 For A.Y. 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Disallowance U/S. 14A Of Rs. 1,51,214/- Made By The Ld Ao, Without Appreciating Facts, Submissions & Evidences In Proper Perspective & Without Assigning Any Proper Reasons 2. On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Which Is Bad In Law & Violating The Principle Of Natural Justice As Ld Cit(A) Passed Order Without Giving Opportunity Of Virtual Online Hearing & Also Without Disposing Ground No. 3 Of Appeal Regarding "Assessment Order Contrary To The Principle Of Natural Justice".

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ram Krishna Kedia
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A