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

Pet Fibres Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 1212/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./1212/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Pet Fibres Limited The Dcit, Circle-3(2) 11-B, Mittal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Vs. Nariman Point,Mumbai-400 021. Mumbai-400 020. Pan:Aaacp 2521 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Ganesh Bare-Dr Assessee By: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.06.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिन यम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग"त अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिन अिधिनयम अिधिन यम यम 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 Dt.18.12.2013 Of Cit(A)-4,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal. Assessee-Company,Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Investment In Shares, Filed Its Return Of Income 01.10.2010, Declaring Total Income At Rs.Nil & Book Profit U/S. 115Jb Of The Act At Rs.11,29,65,950/-.The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The Act, Was Passed On 04.12.2012, Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.Nil, The Ao Calculated The Book Profit U/S. 115Jb Of The Act Rs.11,47,62,323/-. As The Book Profit Was More That The Income Computed As Per The Normal Provisions Of The Act,So The Ao Took The Book Profit For Taxation Purposes.

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kishnadwala-AR’sFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh Bare-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

Karamtara Engineering P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD) RG-8(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes and the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1262/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Am & Shri Pawan Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1262/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Karamtara Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Cit, Range 8(1) (Osd), बनाम/ Aaykar Bhavan, 2Nd Floor, 705, Morya Landmark Ii, New Link Road, Andheri (W), R. No. 204, M. K. Road, Vs. Mumbai-400 053 Mumbai-400 020 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabck 1921 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1707/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Dy. Cit-8(2), Karamtara Engineering Pvt. Ltd. बनाम/ Room No. 209/216A, 2Nd Floor, 705, Morya Landmark Ii, Aaykar Bhavan, M. K. Road, New Link Road, Andheri (W), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 053 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabck 1921 F (Revenue) (Assessee) : : Shri M. K. Patel Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Javed सुनवाई क" तार"ख / : 18.5.2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख / : 29.6.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, A. M.: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee & The Revenue Directed Against The Order By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Mumbai (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 20.12.2012, Partly Allowing The Assessee’S Appeals Contesting Its Assessment

For Respondent: Shri Mohd. Javed
Section 143(3)Section 14A

Vahanvati Consultants P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 2(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 8700/MUM/2011[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Sanjay Garg, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 8700/Mum/2011 (िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" वष" / / / / Assessment Year: 2008-09) वष" M/S Vahanvati Consultants P Ltd Dcit 2(3) बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 3Rd Floor, Crescent Chambers, 56 Room No.555, 5Th Floor, Tamarind Lane, Fort, Aaykar Bhavan, Maharshi Karve Vs. Mumbai-400 023. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. Aabcv0361M (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Manish V Shah ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri S. Senthill Kumaran सुनवाई क" तारीख / : 08/06/2016 Date Of Hearing घोषणा क" तारीख / : 29.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.09.2011 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6, [Hereinafter Referred To As The Cit(A)] Relevant To Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Assessee Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: I. “Inappropriateness Of Confirming Additions That The Ao Made By Treating Short Term Capital Gain As Business Income. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law In Confirming Addition That The Ao Had Made By Treating The Short Term Capital Gain As Business Income.

For Appellant: Shri Manish V ShahFor Respondent: Shri S. Senthill Kumaran
Section 14A