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

Essilor India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITTPA 888/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am It(Tp)A No.888/Bang/2022 : Asst.Year 2018-2010 M/S.Essilor India Private Limited The Deputy Commissioner Of 10Th Floor, Prestige Trade Tower Income-Tax, Circle 2(1)(1) V. Bangalore. 46, Palace Road, High Grounds Sampangi Rama Nagar Bengaluru – 560 001. Pan : Aaace4623J. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Sri.Chavali Narayan, Ca Respondent By : Ms.Neera Malhotra, Cit-Dr Date Of Pronouncement : 12.01.2023 Date Of Hearing : 11.01.2023 O R D E R Per George George K, Jm : This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against Final Assessment Order Dated 28.07.2022 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The I.T.Act. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2018-2019. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are As Follows: The Assessee Is Engaged In The Trading Of Ophthalmic Lenses, Optical Meters & Processing Of Semi-Finished Ophthalmic Lenses. For The Assessment Year 2017-2018, The Return Of Income Was Filed On 30.11.2018 Declaring Loss Of Rs.50,15,147. The Assessment Was Selected For Scrutiny & Notice U/S 143(2) Of The I.T.Act Was Issued On 22.09.2019. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing

For Appellant: Sri.Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Ms.Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 32(1)(iia)Section 92C

Tirumani Investment Private Limited ( Formerly Baccate Securities and Marketing Private Limited), Kolkata vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2130/KOL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A No.2130/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Tirumani Investment Private Limited (Formerly Baccate Securities & Marketing Private Limited)…...…..…Appellant A.C Bhuteria & Co., 2, India Echange Place, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-1. [Pan: Aaacb6491K] Vs. Dcit, Circle-13(2), Kolkata ......…..…...................................…....…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Abhishek Bansal, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Partha Pratim Barman, Addl. Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 12, 2022 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 9, 2023 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.08.2019 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Kolkata [Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. For That The Order Dated 29Th August 2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short, Cit(A)) Is Illegal, Arbitrary, Erroneous So Far It Relates To Adjudication Of Ground 1 Raised In Appeal. Ground 1 Raised In Appeal Is Purely A Question Of Law While The Cit(A) Had Erred In Dealing With & Adjudicating The Same As A Question Of Fact.

Section 139(5)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250