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

Tata Projects Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle - 2(3)(1), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 459/MUM/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.459/Mum/2019 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Tata Projects Limited Acit-2(3)(1) 2Nd To 4Th Floors, Transocean House Aaykar Bhavan बिाम/ Lake Boulevard Road Maharshi Karve Road Hiranandani Business Park Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Hiranandani Gardens, Mhada Colony Powai, Mumbai-400 076. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aaact-4119-L (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajan Vora -Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh -Ld.Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2011-12 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-6/It-76/2017-18 Dated 10/10/2018 On Following Grounds: -

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora -Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh -Ld.DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 244A

DCIT- CC - 1 (1), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd., Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6270/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Vp & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकरअपील िं./ I.T.A. No.6270/Mum/2018 (धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year:2012-13 ) Dcit–Central Circle-1(1) M/S. Edelweiss Tokio Life Insurance Ltd. 4Th Floor, Edelweiss House बिाम/ Room No.903, 9Th Floor Off Cst Road, Kalina Old Cgo (Annexe) Vs. Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 098. M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखा िं./जीआइआर िं./Pan/Gir No. Aaace-2709-H (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Jain-Ld.Ar Revenue By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh -Ld. Dr ुनवाई की तारीख/ : 07/10/2020 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/10/2020 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2012-13 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-8, Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-8/It-217/2016-17 Dated 20/08/2018 On Following Grounds: - 1. "Whether On Facts & Circumstance Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A), Is Correct In Allowing Exemptions U/S. 10(34) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Amounting To Rs.17,92,987/- On Account Of Dividend Income Which Was Denied By The Assessing Officer On The Basis The Fetters Prescribed In Section 44 Of The Income

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Jain-Ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh -Ld. DR
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 44