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

Air India Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(1), Mumbai

ITA 1767/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Apr 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1767/Mum/2015,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2005-06 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/S. Air India Ltd. Dcit-5(1) Finance Bldg. Old Airport, Kalina, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Santacruz (E),Mumbai-400 029. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaaca 9213 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav Assessee By: Shri D.J. Shukla सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11.04.2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11.04.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश 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 लेखा सद"य लेखा लेखा सद"य सद"य राजे"" सद"य राजे"" राजे"" केकेकेके अनुसार राजे"" अनुसार अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- अनुसार Challenging The Order Dated 12.12.2014 Of Cit(A)-10 Mumbai The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Air Transportation Of Passengers & Cargo,Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.10.2005, Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil.The Assessing Officer(Ao)Completed Assessment U/S. 143(3) Of The Act On 26/12/2007 Determin - Ing Its Income At Rs.44 . 33 Crores,Wherein, Interest Disallowance,U/S. 14A Of The Act,Was Made At Rs.12.83Lakhs. Matter Travelled Upto The Tribunal & Issue Was Set Aside To The File Of Ao To Decide The Issue Afresh.He Completed Assessment On 30.03.2013 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs.33.19 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri D.J. ShuklaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

Bang Securities P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5835/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soodm/S. Bang Securities Pvt Ltd., फनाभ/ Dcit-2(1), 20, Sonawala Bldg, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai – 400 023. Mumbai. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacb2269D (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms. Dinkal Hariya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 17.9.2014 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-4, Mumbai Dated 17.7.2014 For The Ay 2010-2011. 2. The Only Issue Raised In This Appeal Relates To The Net Addition Of Rs. 70,15,752/- (Ie Rs. 90,08,056 – Rs. 19,92,304/-) U/S 14A R.W.S 115Jb Of The Act. 3. Before Us, Without Insisting On The Issue Of Making Addition U/S 14A When Assessment Is Made U/S 115Jb Of The Act, Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Assessee Suo Motto Quantified The Disallowance At Rs. 19,92,304/- U/S 14A F The Act. Further Stating That The Assessee Earned Dividend Income Of Rs. 58,95,101/- Ld Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Total Debit In The P & L Account Works Out To Rs. 41,70,492/-. The Disallowance @ Rs. 90,08,056/- U/S 14A Is Much Higher Than The Total Debits To P & L Account. Ao Ignored The Suo Motto Disallowances On Account Of Stt Payments Of Rs. 21,51,865/-. 4. After Hearing The Above Submissions Of The Assessee & The Also The Ld Dr For The Revenue, We Find That The Grounds Raised In The Appeal Should Be Remanded For Reworking Of The Disallowable Sum U/S 14A Of The Act. Ao Is Directed To Consider

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkal HariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 115JSection 14A

Bharat Talakshi Chheda, Mumbai vs. Jt CIT 23(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2894/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Soodbharat Talakshi Chheda, फनाभ/ Jcit-23(2), 19, Ganesh Baug, Mumbai. Vs. J Nehru Road, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpc1879Q (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Appellant By : Ms. Dinkal Hariya प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Respondent By : Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.03.2017 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee On 28.04.2014 Is Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-7, Mumbai Dated 15.01.2014 For The Ay 2009-2010. 2. The Only Issue Raised In The Grounds Of Appeal Relates To The Disallowance Of Rs. 11,06,409/- U/S 14A Of The Act. Ao Considered The Above For Disallowance Out Of The Total Claim Of Interest Expenses Of R. 16,37,827/-. Ao Is Said To Have Ignored The Fact That The Assessee Has Adequate Own Funds & Also The Concept Of “Presumption” Laid Down In Various Judicial Pronouncements. On Appeal, Cit (A) Confirmed The Above Stand Of The Ao. 3. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld Ar For The Assessee Brought Our Attention To The Binding Judgment Of The Cit Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd (2009) 313 Itr 340 (Bom.) & Also Binding Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Jurisdictional High Court In The Case Of Hdfc Bank Ltd Vs. Dcit [2016] 383 Itr 529 (Bombay) & Requested For Directing The Ao To Apply The Said Ratios Of The Judgments.

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkal HariyaFor Respondent: Ms. Jotilakshmi Nayak, DR
Section 14A