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

Orchid Holdings Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 684/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyअपील सं./I.T.A.No.684/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Orchid Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [Now The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Known As Orchid Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.] Income Tax, No. 1, 6Th Floor, Crown Court, New No. Corporate Circle 5(1), 128 (Old No. 34), Cathedral Road, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 086. [Pan:Aaaco0399K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.683/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Orchid Health Care Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd.[Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Income Tax, Vs. Holdings (P) Ltd.], No. 1, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 5(1), Crown Court, New No. 128 (Old No. Chennai 34. 34), Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan:Aaaco0399K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

Orchid Holdings Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in I

ITA 683/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyअपील सं./I.T.A.No.684/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 M/S. Orchid Holdings Pvt. Ltd. [Now The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. Known As Orchid Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.] Income Tax, No. 1, 6Th Floor, Crown Court, New No. Corporate Circle 5(1), 128 (Old No. 34), Cathedral Road, Chennai 34. Chennai 600 086. [Pan:Aaaco0399K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.683/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Orchid Health Care Pvt. The Deputy Commissioner Of Ltd.[Formerly Known As M/S. Orchid Income Tax, Vs. Holdings (P) Ltd.], No. 1, 6Th Floor, Corporate Circle 5(1), Crown Court, New No. 128 (Old No. Chennai 34. 34), Cathedral Road, Chennai 600 086. [Pan:Aaaco0399K] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.A. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri A.V. Sreekanth, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 23.06.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy:

For Appellant: Shri B. Ramakrishnan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT
Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

ACIT, Chennai vs. El Forge Limited, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1551/CHNY/2016[20101-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Jun 2017

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 1551/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. El Forge Limited, Income Tax, Vs. New No. 247/4, Old No. 338, Corporate Circle 2(1) , Ambujammal Street, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 018. [Pan:Aaace1706L] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri K. Ravi, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.06.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.06.2017 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 17.03.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2010-11, Wherein, The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Revenue Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Restricting The Disallowance Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short] To The Exempt Income Earned By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Shri K. Ravi, JCITFor Respondent: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 201

Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Coimbatore

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

ITA 3180/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Jun 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.3180/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. Coimbatore Hitech Infrastructure The Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, No. 365, Thudiyalur Vs. Income Tax, Road, Saravanampatti Corporate Circle 2, Coimbatore 641 035. Coimbatore 641 018. [Pan: Aaccc5201G] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri A.S. Sriraman, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 29.03.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 09.06.2017 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Coimbatore Dated 26.08.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Only Effective Ground Raised In The Appeal Of The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Made Under Section 14A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Act” In Short] R.W. Rule 8D Of Income Tax Rules.

For Appellant: Shri A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14A