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

Grindwell Norton Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT 9(3)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4594/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon’Ble & Ms. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble] I.T.A. No. 4594/Mum/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Grindwell Norton Ltd.……...........…...…………..….....................................................................Appellant C/O. Kalyaniwalla & Mistry Llp, Esplanade House, 2Nd Floor, 29, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. [Pan: Aaacg 8725 B] Vs. Acit – 9(3)(2), Mumbai……………….......…..…………………....…………………………………Respondent Room No. 418, 4Th Floor, Aaykar Bhawan, M.K. Marg, Mumbai – 400 020. Appearances By: Shri Akram Khan & Shri Vinit Mehta, Ca Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri N. Padmanaban, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 07, 2020 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 9, 2020 Order Per Ms. Madhumita Roy, Jm The Instant Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.05.2018 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A) – 56 Mumbai U/S 143(3) Read With Section 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Arising Out Of The Order Dated 02.12.2016 Passed By The Acit-9(3)(2), Mumbai For A.Y. 2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Mainly Challenged The Orders Passed By The Authorities Below Rejecting The Contention Of The Assessee That No Disallowances U/S 14A R.W.R 8D Lies In Respect Of Investments Which Has Not Earned Exempt Income & The Disallowance Of Expenditure Under Rule 8D(2)(Iii) Should Be Restricted To Rs. 37,085/-. The Facts Of The Case Is This That The Assessee During The Year Under Consideration

Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 14A

D.C.I.T., Circle - 12(1), Kolkata vs. M/S A.K.G Finvest Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 97/KOL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jan 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Kolkata……...........…….…….....…....Appellant Vs. M/S. Akg Finvest Ltd…………………………………………..................................……………..…......Respondent 1St Floor 37A, Southern Avenue (Renamed As Dr. Meghnad Saha Sarani) Kolkata – 700 029 [Pan : Aadca 8306 P] Appearances By: Dr. P.K. Srihari, Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, Fca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 28Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 8Th, 2019 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 22, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The “Ld.Cit(A)”), Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act’), Dt. 16/10/2017, For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. We Have Heard Rival Contentions. On Careful Consideration Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Perusal Of The Papers On Record, Orders Of The Authorities Below As Well As Case Law Cited, We Hold As Follows:- 3. The Assessee Is A Non-Banking Financial Company. It Filed Its Return Of Income Electronically On 29.09.2010, Declaring Total Income Of Rs.22,50,430/-. The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 31/03/2013 Determining Total Income At Rs.6,37,17,496/-. Aggrieved The Assessee Carried The Matter In Appeal Before The Ld. First Appellate Authority. The Ld. First Appellate Authority Granted Part Relief. 4. Aggrieved The Revenue Is In Appeal Before Us On The Following Grounds:- “(I) That On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred By Treating The Frequent Sales & Purchases Of The Assessee Company As Investment Income & Not Business Income.

Section 10Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250