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

Multiplex Capital Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-17(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2289/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2013-14 Multiplex Capital Ltd., Vs. Ito, 100/28, Keshav Tower, Ward-17(2), Rajapur Market, New Delhi. Sector-9, Rohini, New Delhi. Pan: Aaacm1761B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.08.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th January, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-36, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee, In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.1,66,506/- Out Of Disallowance Of Rs.6,49,130/- Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The It Rules, 1962. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Company Is A Stock Exchange & Depository Member Dealing In Shares. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29Th September, 2013 Declaring Loss Of Rs.42,327/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Company Has Claimed Dividend Of Rs.9,65,247/- As Exempt. On Being Questioned By The Assessing Officer, It Was Explained That The Assessee Has Suo Motu Disallowed An Amount Of Rs.4,82,624/- Being 50% Of The Exempt Dividend Income & No Further Disallowance Is Called For. However, The Assessing Officer Was Not Satisfied With The Explanation Given By The Assessee. Relying On The Provisions Of Section 14A Read With Rule 8D Of The It Rules, The Assessing Officer Made A Disallowance Of Rs.6,49,130/-. In Appeal, The Ld.Cit(A) Restricted Such Disallowance To Rs.1,66,506/- Being The Difference Between The Amount Computed By The Assessing Officer U/S 14A Read With Rule 8D & The Disallowance Suo Motu Made By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR
Section 14A

DCIT-5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S.Winsome Diamonds and Jewellery Limited (Formerly Known As M/S. Su-Raj Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd), Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3982/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri C.N. Prasad, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.3982/Mum/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dcit-5(3)(2) M/S Winsome Diamonds & Jewellery Ltd. Room No.573, 5Th Floor [Formerly Known As Su-Raj Diamond & Jewellery Ltd.] बनाम/ 906-908, The Plaza, 55 Gamdevi Aaykar Bhavan Vs. Near Dharm Palace M.K. Road Grant Road, Mumbai-400 007. Mumbai-400 020. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs-5516-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : None Revenue By : Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 20/08/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 20/08/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year [In Short Referred To As ‘Ay’] 2014-15 Contest The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-10 Mumbai, [In Short Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’], Appeal No. Cit(A)-10, Mumbai/11101/2016-17 Dated 23/03/2018 Qua Deletion Of Disallowance U/S 14A.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh - Ld.Sr.AR
Section 143(3)Section 14A