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

M/S. Osian Stock Broking Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward- 6(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 408/KOL/2022[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 408/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/S. Osian Stock Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), C/O S M Surana Advocate Kolkata Vs Unit No. 1501 15Th Floor Diamond Heritage 16, Strand Road Kolkata - 700001 [Pan : Aaaco3479N] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Fca Revenue By : Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/01/2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 28/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: This Is The Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”], Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Dated 13/06/2022 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) On Legal Issue As Well As On Merit As Raised In The Concise Grounds Of Appeal Filed By The Assessee Which Are Reproduced Below: “1. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Not Properly Appreciating The Facts & Disposing The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee. 2. For That The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Holding That The Ao Has Taken Into Consideration All Legal Steps Before Initiating Action U/S 147 When The Reopening Of Assessment Was Not In Accordance With Law.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, D/R
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 151Section 250Section 68

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Rkm Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 647/CHNY/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.646 & 647/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. R K M Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), No. 14, Dr. Giriapa Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aadcr0301B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Ravichandran, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 30.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011- 12 & 2012-13. The Only Effective Common Ground Raised In The Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The It Rules, 1962. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Setting Up & Operation Of Thermal Power Plants & Filed Its Return Of Income For 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri V. Ravichandran, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A

ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Chennai vs. M/S. Rkm Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Chennai

ITA 646/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri G. Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.646 & 647/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2012-13 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. R K M Powergen Pvt. Ltd., Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), No. 14, Dr. Giriapa Road, Chennai. T. Nagar, Chennai 600 017. [Pan:Aadcr0301B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri V. Ravichandran, C.A. सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.02.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.02.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: Both The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against Different But Identical Orders Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai, Both Dated 30.05.2022 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2011- 12 & 2012-13. The Only Effective Common Ground Raised In The Both The Appeals Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Disallowance Made Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The It Rules, 1962. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is Engaged In Setting Up & Operation Of Thermal Power Plants & Filed Its Return Of Income For 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCITFor Respondent: Shri V. Ravichandran, C.A
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A