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

Suryoday Small Finance Bank Ltd.(Earlier Known As Suryoday Micro Finance Ltd.), Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT - 15(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3440/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Mar 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Sri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./ Ita No. 3440/Mum/2018 अपील (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2014-15) Suryoday Small Finance Bank The Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax-15(3)(2) (Earlier Known As Suryoday Aaykar Bhvan, Mahareshi Micro Finance Ltd.) Karve Road, Mumbai-400 020 बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम 1101, Sharda Terraces, Plot Vs. No.65, Sector 11, Cbd Belapur, Navi Mumbai-400 614 (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" / Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" (""यथ" ""यथ"/ Respondent) ""यथ" ""यथ" "थायी "थायी लेखा "थायी "थायी लेखा लेखा संसंसंसं./Pan No. Aamcs5499J लेखा : Shri Yogesh Thar, Ar अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri V. Vinod Kumar, Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By 05.12.2019 सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 02.03.2020 आदेश आदेश / O R D E R आदेश आदेश राजेश कुमार, लेखा सद"य / Per Rajesh Kumar, Am: These Are Appeals By The Assessee Directed Against Respective Orders Of Learned Cit(A) Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri V. Vinod Kumar, DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 250Section 3Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 56(2)(vii)Section 56(2)(viib)

Kusumlata Sonthalia, Kolkata vs. Principal CIT, Central - 1, Kolkata

Appeal is allowed

ITA 1112/KOL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, V.P & Shri S. S. Godara, Jm आयकर अपीलसं/I.T.A No.1112/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Kusumlata Sonthalia Vs. Pcit, Central-1, Kolkata. 34, Pankaj Mallick Sarani, Jayantika Apartment, 1St Floor, Ballygunge, Kolkata – 700019. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abbpa8446Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Nirav Shesth, Aca Respondent By : Shri Ram Bilash Meena, Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/02/2020 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri S. S. Godara: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central-1, Kolkata’S Order Dated 28.02.2019 Involving Proceedings U/S 153A/143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Coming To The Basic Relevant Facts, We Notice That The Pcit’S Action Under Challenge Has Assumed Revision Jurisdiction Vested U/S 263 Of The Act To Hold The Regular Assessment In Question Framed In Assessee’S Case On 30.12.2016 As An Erroneous One Causing Prejudice To Interest Of The Revenue On The Ground That The Assessing Officer Had Failed To Carry Out Factual Verification/Necessary Enquires/Investigation Regarding The Tax-Payer’S Long Term Capital Losses Of Rs.156075/- & Gains Of Rs.13010/- As Per Stamp Duty Valuation(S) Of Rs.1465454/-And Rs.1353454/-; Respectively. He Thus Sought To Invoke Section

For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shesth, ACAFor Respondent: Shri Ram Bilash Meena, CIT
Section 14ASection 153ASection 263