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

Saryu Properties and Hotels P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 4(2), Mumbai

In the result this appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 5674/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.5674/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) M/S. Saryu Properties & Hotels Pvt. Dcit-Cc 4(2), 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Ltd. बनाम/ Plot No. 25, Girnar, ‘B’Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 Vs. 1St Floor, Pali Mala Road, Pali Hill, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaacs 6983 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Sunil K. Ramaro & Shri Vinay Sinha ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-52, Mumbai Dated 30.06.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Not Admitting The Additional Grounds Relating To Disallowance U/S I4-A Holding That The Said Disallowance Was In The Original

For Appellant: Shri Sunil K. Ramaro &For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 14A

Darshan D. Shah, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 21(1), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4959/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.4959/Mum/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Darshan D. Shah Asst.Cit-21(1) बनाम/ Kumkum, S. V. Road, C-10, Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Vile Parle (W), Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 056 Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aaips 2990 M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Dhivendra M. Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 02.11.2017 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 04.01.2018 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-37, Mumbai Dated 10.06.2016 & Pertains To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Read As Under: 1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Made Of Rs.9,97,032/- U/S.14A Of The Act, Which Addition Should Be Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Dhivendra M. ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru
Section 14A

Varsha Corporation Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(3)(2), Mumbai

ITA 7492/MUM/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Jan 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Sh. Rajendra & Ravish Soodआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.7492/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S.Varsha Corporation Ltd., Dy.Commissioner Of Income Tax- Varsha 13 Adarsh Society, 13(3)(2), Ramchandra Lane Extension, Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Malad (West), Mubai – 400 064. Mumbai-400 020. Pan: Aabcv2293E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Ram Tiwari - Dr Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Rajora सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 08/11/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03/01/2018 आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम, 1961 क" धारा ( 1 ) 254 केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर क" धारा आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य सद"य,राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार अनुसार -Per Rajendra,Am: लेखा लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Challenging The Order Dtd. 28/10/2016 Of The Cit(A)-21,Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Import & Trading In Plastic Raw Materials, Chemicals & Trading In Bullion,Filed Its Return Of Income On, 27/09/2013,Declaring Income Of Rs.2,83,12,120/-The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed The Assessment On 24/11/ 2015, U/S.14A3(3)Of The Act,Determining Its Income At Rs. 2.84 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh RajoraFor Respondent: Shri Ram Tiwari - DR
Section 14ASection 254(1)