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 Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-2, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1194/JPR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Apr 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 1194/Jp/2018 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2013-14 M/S Trimurty Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Cuke I.T.O. Vs. 601, Geeta Enclave, Vinobha Ward 2(2) Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur. Jaipur. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Aabct 7285 Q Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By : Shri Rohan Sogani (Ca) & Shri Rajeev Sogani (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 23/03/2021 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 06/04/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)- I, Jaipur Dated 13/09/2018 For The A.Y. 2013-14 In The Matter Of Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short, The Act), Wherein Following Grounds Have Been Taken. “1. (A) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Enhancing The Income By Disallowing Interest Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. The Action Of The Ld. Cit(A) Is Illegal, Unjustified, Arbitrary & Against The Facts Of The Case. Relief May Please Be Granted By Allowing The Said Expenditure Of Rs. 53,78,282. (B) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Exercising The Powers Of Enhancement Under Section 251(1)(A).

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani (CA) &For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 263Section 36(1)(iii)

Meditab Specialities Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT 2(2)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3395/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3395/Mum/2019 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Meditab Specialities Pvt. बिधम/ Acit-2(2)(2) 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Ltd. Vs. Unit No.Sb-901 & Sb 902, M.K. Marg, Room No.545, Empire Tower Building, Mumbai-400020. Gut No.31, Cloud City Campus, Thane, Belapur Road, Airoli, Navi Mumbai. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacm6124A (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri V. Mohan Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Had Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 18.03.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -5, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2014- 15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. Disallowance Of Rs. 40,91,150 (Rs. 131,04,740 - Rs. 90,13,590) Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Rules - Tax Effect Rs. 13,90,580 A) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit (A) Has Erred In Not Accepting The Submission That In A Case Where There A.Y.2014-15 Is No Receipt Of Tax Free Income There Should Not Be Any Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Act. The Learned Cit (A) Ought To Have Considered The Order Of Honourable Itat Dated 18.08.2017 In Appellant'S Own Case For Ay 2012-13. B) The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs. 40,91,150 Under Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D Of The Income-Tax Rules, 1962 (Rules').

For Appellant: Shri V. MohanFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 143(1)Section 14A

Roha Dyechem Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Central Range - 7(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 2744/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Apr 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2744/Mum/2019 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2015-16) बनधम/ M/S. Roha Dyechem Pvt. Dcit, Central Range-7(4) Ltd. Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Vs. A44/45, Road No.2, Karve Road, Churchgate- Midc, Andheri (E), 400020. Mumbai-400093. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. :Aaacr4974P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Snehal Shah Revenue By: Shri Bharat Andhale (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05/01/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 01/04/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 04.02.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-49, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals(Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Additional Disallowance Of Rs.44,13,583/- U/S 14A R.W.S. 8D Under Normal Provisions As Well As U/S 115Jb Of The Income Tax Act. 2. The Appellant Prays That The Disallowance Of Rs.44,13,583/- Should Be Deleted. Without Prejudice, The Disallowance Be Appropriately Reduced. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend And/Or Alter The Above Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale (Sr. AR)
Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)