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

M/S. Scorpio Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

ITA 871/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Scorpio Tie Up Pvt. Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Ltd., 16, Ram Sevak Ward-7(3), P7, V/S. Mullick Lane, Cowringhee Square, Kolkata-700007 Aayakr Bhawan, [Pan No.Aamcs 7616 R] Kolkakta-69 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Kolkata’S Order Dated 22.02.2018 Passed In Case No.1598/2015- 16/Cit(A)-18/Wd-7(3)/F.Sl. No.2364/17-18/Kol Ex Parte Upholding The Assessing Officer’S Action Adding Its Share Application/Premium Of ₹1,26,00,000/- Is As Unexplained Cash Credits U/S. 68 Followed By Section 14A R.W. 8D Rule Disallowance Of ₹2,27,168/-, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Order Under Challenge Nowhere Specifies Points Of His Determination Followed By Detailed Reasoning As Envisaged U/S. 250(6) Of The Act. There Is Further No Observation In His Lower Appellate Order As To Whether Assessee Had Been Served Notice Of Hearing Or Not.

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 68

DCIT, Cir-5(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Spencer'S Retail Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 1939/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2009-10 Dcit, Circle-5(1) V/S. M/S Spencer’S Retail Ltd., P-7, Chowringhee 31, Netaji Subhas Road, Duncan House, 1St Floor, Square, Kolkata- 700069 Kolkakta-700001 [Pan No.Aabcg 3443 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. Cit-Dr अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri D.S. Damle, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 10-07-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 25-07-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 25.07.2016, Passed In Case No.981/Cit(A)-2/14-15, Reversing The Assessing Officer’S Action Inter Alia Disallowing / Adding Assessee’S Club Expenditure Claim, Esop, Section 36(1)(Va) Disallowance On Account Of Late Payment Of Employees’ Contribution To Esi/Pf & Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Disallowance Of ₹20,32,700/-; Respectively Involving Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. This Assessee Is A Company Engaged In Retail Trading Of Food Items, Non-Food Items, Music, Books Etc. It Claimed Its Club Expenditure Of ₹17,39,624/- In Its Books Of Account. Its Case Therein Was To Have Incurred The

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(va)

Narendra Ishwarlal Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7316/MUM/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. C. Sharma, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7316/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Narendra Ishwarlal Gandhi बिधम/ The Asst. Commissioner Of 3C, Ridge Apartement, B.G Income Tax Circle 10(2)(1) Vs. Kher Marg, Malabar Hill, Mumbai-400006. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Adnpg4447P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Suman Kumar (Dr) Assessee By: Ms. Shebali Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 05.07.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.07.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 15.05.2015 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -17, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2013- 14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - 1 The Ld Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Dismissing The Appeal On Technical Ground. The Appeal Was Filed Within 30 Days From The Date Of The Receipt Of The Order, The Action Is Unjustified & Unwarranted. 2. The Ld. C1T(A) Has Erred In Law & On The Facts Of The Case In Confirming The Addition Of Rs- 840,000 Notional Income A.Y.2013-14

For Appellant: Ms. Shebali GargFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar (DR)
Section 10Section 143(2)Section 14A