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

DCIT 1(1), Mumbai vs. Cox & Kings Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, cross objection raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2381/MUM/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jan 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Amarjit Singhi.T.A. No.2381/M/2014 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) फनाभ/ Dcit-1(1), M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Room No.579, Aayakar Bhavan, Turner Morrison Building, Vs. Mumbai – 400 020. 16, Bank Street, Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc1921B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) C.O. No.135/M/2015 (Assessment Year: 2008-2009) फनाभ/ M/S. Cox & Kings Ltd., Dcit-1(1), Turner Morrison Building, Room No.579, Aayakar Vs. 16, Bank Street, Bhavan, Mumbai – 400 020. Mumbai – 400 001. स्थामी रेखा सं./ Pan : Aaacc1921B (अऩीराथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) अऩीराथी की ओय से / Assessee By : Shri Rajan R. Vora प्रत्मथी की ओय से/ Revenue By : Shri Shiddaramappa Kappata Navar, Dr सुनवाई की तायीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.12.2015 घोषणा की तायीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14.01.2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Captioned Appeal Ita No.2381/M/2014 Is Filed By The Revenue & The Cross Objection Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit (A)-1, Mumbai Dated 10.1.2014 For The Assessment Year 2008-2009. Since, The Issues Involved In These Appeals Are Inter-Connected, Therefore, For The Sake Of Convenience, They Are Clubbed, Heard Together & Disposed Of In This Consolidated Order. Appeal Wise Adjudication Is Given In The Following Paragraphs Of This Order.

For Appellant: Shri Rajan R. VoraFor Respondent: Shri Shiddaramappa Kappata
Section 14A

J.M Financial Institutional Securities Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 3, Mumbai

ITA 2863/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Sh. Sanjay Garg & Ashwani Tanejaआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.Ita No.2863/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2009-10 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" J.M. Financial Institutional Cit-3, Securities Ltd.(Successor Of Vs. Room No.612, Aayakar Jm Financial Ventures Ltd.) Bhavan M.K. Road 7Th Floor, Cnergy, Appasaheb Mumbai-400 020. Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Mumbai-400 025. Pan No.Aaacm 7079 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant ) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant By S/Shri K.Sivaram & Sanjay Parikh Respondent By Shri Alok Johri-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.01.2015 O R D E R Per Ashwani Taneja, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Cit-3 , Mumbai U/S. 263 For Assessment Year 2009-10 Vide Order Dt.10.3.2014. Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds :- “A) Revision U/S. 263 1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax - 3, Mumbai (Cit) Erred On Facts & In Law In Setting Aside The Order Passed By The Income Tax Officer 3(2)(1), Mumbai (Ao) Holding That The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Was Passed Without Application Of Mind Or Failed To Apply His Mind To The Case In All Perspective & Therefore The Order Was Erroneous. 2) The Learned Cit Erred On Facts & In Law In Holding That The Ao Had Not Made Any Enquiry Before Accepting The Disallowance Made By The 2 Ita No.2863/M/14-Jm Financial Appellant U/S. 14A Of Rs. 1,54,50,477/- & Hence The Order Of The Ao Was Erroneous & Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Revenue.

Section 14ASection 263