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

DCIT Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai vs. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2694/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Oct 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2694/Mds/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Hinduja Foundries Ltd., Income Tax, Corporate Circle 2(2), Vs. [Merged With M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd.] Room No. 512, 5Th Floor, Wanaparthy Kathivakkam High Road, Block, 121, M.G. Road, Ennore, Chennai 600 057. Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaace1078K] (Appellant) (Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Saroj Kumar, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 22.10.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 6, Chennai Dated 31.05.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. In This Appeal, The Revenue Has Raised Two Effective Grounds Viz., (I) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Directing The Assessing Officer To Allow The Claim Of Additional Depreciation For The Year Under Consideration & (Ii) The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In In Holding That No Disallowance Is Warranted Under Section 14A Of The Act, Wherein No Dividend/Exempt Income Has Been Reported By The Assessee During The 2

For Appellant: Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CITFor Respondent: Shri Saroj Kumar, Advocate
Section 14ASection 32

Shri Ramniklal H. Ambani, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-5(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3202/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Oct 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 3202/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ramniklal H. Ambani, Vs. Dcit, Vimal House, 7 Gadhvi Society, Circle – 5(2), Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad. Pan No. Aalpa 6303 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sameer Jani, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 15.10.2018 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Appellate Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] Relevant To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Learned Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Partly Confirming The Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer U/S 143(3) Of The Act. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts On The Issue Of Disallowance Under Section 14A Without Considering The Contention Of The Appellant. The Appellant'S Contention That Majority Of The Investment In Shares Are Made Before Many Years Is Neglected By The Ld.Cit(A). The Ld.Cit(A) Has Conveniently Misrepresented The Fact In His Order That No Bifurcation With Regards To Stock In Trade & Investments Is Given Even Though Separate Figures Were Given During Appellate Proceedings. The 2 Ramniklal H. Ambai Vs. Dcit Ay : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sameer Jani, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr. D.R
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14A