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

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Edwell Infrastruture Hazira Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2950/MUM/2022[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2950/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit-6(1)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Edwell Infrastructure Room No. 504, 5Th Floor, Hazira Ltd. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. 11, Essar House, K. K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Marg, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400034. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce6217B (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Dhaval Shah Revenue By: Ms. Richa Gulati (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 24/01/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 19.09.2022 For Ay. 2014-15. 2. At The Outset, It Was Brought To Our Notice By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee That The Revenue Appeal Is Hit By The Tax Effect Since The Disallowance U/S 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter “The Act”) Has Been Made By The Ao Only To The Tune Of Rs.9,55,878/- & Addition In Respect Of Employees Contribution Of Provident Fund Was Also To The Tune Of Rs.2,24,989/-. Thus Total Addition Made By Ao Was Only To The Tune Of Rs.11,80,867/-. & Therefore In The Light Of The Cbdt Circular The Department Ought Not To Have Filed The Appeal Against The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A). 3. We Have Heard The Arguments Advanced By Ld. Representative Of The Parties & Perused The Record. During The Course Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Pointed Out That Tax Effect Involved In This Appeal

For Appellant: Shri Dhaval ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Richa Gulati (Sr. AR)
Section 14A

Shri Rajiv Rameshchander Babbar, Mumbai vs. ITO -16(1)(5), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1528/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1528/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2014-15) Rajiv Rameshchander बिधम/ Vs. Ito-16(1)(5) Babbar Room No. 439, Aayakar Flat No. 1, Amar Bhavan, M. K. Road, Niletan, J. B. Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Andheri East, Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabpb9241M (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kiran Mehta Revenue By: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30/11/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/01/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-04, Mumbai Dated 17.01.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Three Effective Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: - 1) “In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Not Allowing Loss Of Rs. 41,64,684/- Incurred By The Appellant In Trading In Shares Of M/S Shaleen Textiles & Claimed As Business Share Trading Loss. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Disallowing The Above Loss Relying, Inter-Alia, On The Decision Of Hon. Bombay Hc In The Case Of Shri Sanjay Jain While Completely Ignoring The Submissions Made By The Appellant Distinguishing The Said Case. The Learned Cit(A) Also Erred In Relying On Various Case Laws Which Were Distinguishable While Ignoring The Case Law Cited Which Were Applicable To The Case Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Smt. Nayana K. Kumar
Section 14ASection 69C