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

ACIT 3(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Edelweiss Trading & Holdings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 4259/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.4259/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Acit-3(1)(2) बिधम/ M/S. Edelweiss Trading & Room No. 607, 6Th Floor, Holding Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- Edelweiss Commodities 400020 Ltd.) 1, Edelweiss House, Off, Cst Road, Kalina, Santacruz (E) Mumbai- 400098 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabce3819M (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Rajan Vora सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17. 01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 16.03.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 8, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- “1. "On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit{A) Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.12,74,59,362/- Made By Assessing Officer On Account Of Mark To Market Loss A.Y.2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rajan VoraFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 10(34)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Jt. CIT (OSD) Cent. Cir. 4(1) Cent. RG. 4, Mumbai vs. Bijesh Thakkar, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 2787/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajendra, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2787/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ Shri Bijesh Thakker Prop, Tax, (Osd), Central Circle Thakker & Thakker 601, Vs. 4(1), Central Range-4, R.No. Embassy Centre, Nariman 1916, 19Th Floor, Air India Point, Mumbai 400021 Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapt7758G (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Sanjiv M. Shah सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 26.10.2017 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15.01.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 01.01.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The Ay.2011-12. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds:- 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S.14A R.W. Rule

For Appellant: Shri Sanjiv M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Deshpande (DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 14A(3)Section 195Section 40A

Spt Securities Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 5, Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee (Ground no

ITA 265/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri A. T Varkey, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.265/Kol/2016 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Spt Securities Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Kolkata 11, Clive Row, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata – 1. Ayakar Bhavan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 69. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. :Aadcs 8015 P (Assessee) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate. Respondent By : None सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 17/11/2017 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 12/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)–2, Kolkata, In Appeal No.987/Cit(A)-2/C-5/14-15 Dated 14.12.2015, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 28.03.2011. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 2. “1. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Bad In Law & On Facts Of The Case. 2.That The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Sub-Brokerage Payments To Sub-Brokers On The Transactions Related To Shares & Securities Inspite Of Specific Exclusion Of The ‘Brokerage On Shares Trade’ From The Definition Of ‘Commission & Brokerage’ In The Explanation To Section 194H. 3.The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal) Also Erred In Holding That The Appellant Could Not Prove The Transaction To Be Related To The Trading Of Shares Of Securities. 4.The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Further Erred In Upholding The Addition U/S 14A In Respect Of Shares Held As Stock By The Appellant Company.

For Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: NONE
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 40