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

Crescent Organics P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT 10(1), Mumbai

ITA 6428/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shjoginder Singh & Rajendraआयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./6428/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2010-11 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Crescent Organics Pvt. Ltd. Dcit-10(1) Windsor, 2Nd Floor, Cst Road Mumbai. Kalina, Santacruz (E) Vs. Mumbai-400 098. Pan:Aaacc 1690 D (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-Dr Assessee By: Shri Piyush Chhajed-Ar’S सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2016 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 30.05.2016 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" क" धारा धारा 254(1)केकेकेके अ"तग" अ"तग"त आदेश आदेश आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम क" क" धारा धारा अ"तग" अ"तग" 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.8.7.2014 Of Cit(A)-21,Mumbai, The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.Assessee-Company, Engaged In The Business Of Trading & Indenting Of Chemicals, Filed Its Return Of Income 27.09.2010, Declaring Total Income At Rs.17.37 Crores. A Revised Return Was Filed On 10.8.2011 Wherein The Income Was Revised At Rs.17.45 Crores .The Assessing Officer (Ao) Completed The Assessment U/S.143(3) Of The Act,Determining The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.17.62 Crores.

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed-AR’sFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratham-DR
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 254(1)

Ac Nielesen Org-Marg P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 6(1), Mumbai

ITA 8799/MUM/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Sh.Rajendra & C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./8799/Mum/2011,िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/S. Nielsen (India) Private Limited Addl. Range-6(1) Aayakar Bhavan, 4Th Floor, M.K.Marg (Formerly Known As M/S. Acnielson Org- Marg Private Limited) Mumbai-400 020. 6Th Floor, Block C, Godrej It Park, 02 Vs. Godrej Business District, Lbs Marg, Phirojshanagar, Vikhroli (W) Mumbai-400 079. Pan:Aaacm 9279 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By:Shri N.K. Chand Assessee By: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish Soparkar सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2016 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 27.05.2016 आयकर अिधिनयम,1961 की धारा 254(1)के अ"ग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद" राजे" के अनुसार Per Rajendra, Am- Challenging The Order Dated 24.10.2011 Of The Assessing Officer (Ao), Passed Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C (13) Of The Act,The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal.During The Course Of Hearing Before Us, The Authorised Representative (Ar)Stated That The Assessee Was Not Interested In Pursuing Ground Number Six, Considering The Smallness Of The Tax Effect.Therefore, Same Stands Dismissed As Not Pressed. 2.Assessee-Company Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of Valcon, Which Is Part Of The Ac Nielsen Group. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Providing Customised Market Research Services Including Quantitative & Qualitative Consumer Studies, Print Media Measurement Services & Retail Measurement Services Which Includes Retail Tracking, Modeling & Analytics & Category Manage - Ment.It Filed Its Return Of Income On 29/10/2007, Declaring Total Income At Rs. 18.12 Crores.The Ao Completed The Assessment On 24/10/2011,Determining The Income Of The Assessee At Rs. 33.77 Crores.

For Appellant: S/Shri Saurabh Soparkar & Bandish SoparkarFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Chand
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254(1)Section 92