Section 14A Amendment Cannot Apply Retrospectively to AY 2014-15: ITAT Mumbai

Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited Vs CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

Summary: The Mumbai Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal allowed the appeal of Thomson Reuters International Services Private Limited for Assessment Year 2014-15 and deleted a disallowance of Rs.91,43,535 under section 14A read with Rule 8D. The appeal challenged the NFAC, Delhi order dated 18 March 2026, passed under section 250, which arose from the reassessment order dated 31 May 2023 under section 147. The assessee had filed its return under section 139(1), and the original assessment had been completed under section 143(3). During reassessment, the Assessing Officer made the disputed disallowance in connection with investment in equity shares of Omnesys Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

The assessee contended that it had earned no exempt income during the relevant previous year and that no disallowance could therefore be made under the law applicable to AY 2014-15. Before the CIT(A), it cited decisions involving Chettinad Logistics, Oil Industry Development Board, Cheminvest, Kohinoor Project, Red Chillies Entertainment and Ballarpur Industries. The CIT(A), however, sustained the disallowance by treating the Explanation inserted in section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022, with effect from 1 April 2022, as retrospective. Relying on the words “shall be deemed to have always applied”, the CIT(A) held that section 14A applied even where no exempt income had accrued, arisen or been received, and considered the authorities cited by the assessee to precede the amendment.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee challenged that interpretation and relied on Pr. CIT (Central) v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., 448 ITR 674 (Delhi). It also produced its return of income to demonstrate that no exempt income had been earned. The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities and specifically relied on the CIT(A)’s reasoning concerning the Explanation.

The Tribunal held that the limited controversy concerned the applicability of section 14A read with Rule 8D to a year in which the assessee admittedly earned no exempt income. Following Era Infrastructure, it explained that an amendment described as being “for removal of doubts” cannot be presumed retrospective where it alters the law as it previously stood. The Delhi High Court had considered the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2022 and held that the amendment operated from 1 April 2022, applying to AY 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years. Consequently, it could not govern AY 2014-15. Since the material also established the absence of exempt income, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)’s finding on retrospective operation, deleted the entire disallowance of Rs.91,43,535 and allowed the assessee’s appeal in ITA No. 6592/Mum/2026. The order was pronounced on 5 October 2026.

Cases Discussed

• Pr. CIT (Central) v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd., 448 ITR 674 (Delhi High Court) — Followed by the Tribunal to hold that the Finance Act, 2022 amendment applied prospectively from AY 2022-23 and could not sustain the disallowance for AY 2014-15.
• PCIT v. Kohinoor Project (P.) Ltd. (Bombay High Court) — Listed among the authorities cited by the assessee before the CIT(A) against disallowance where no exempt income was earned.
• PCIT v. Red Chillies Entertainment (P.) Ltd. (Bombay High Court) — Cited by the assessee before the CIT(A) on the absence of exempt income; the Tribunal’s operative reasoning rested on Era Infrastructure.
• PCIT v. Oil Industry Development Board (Supreme Court) — Included in the assessee’s authorities before the CIT(A) supporting its objection to disallowance without exempt income.
• CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (Supreme Court) — The Supreme Court authority was separately listed by the assessee before the CIT(A), along with the Madras High Court decision in the same matter.
• CIT v. Chettinad Logistics (P.) Ltd. (Madras High Court) — Cited before the CIT(A) for the assessee’s contention that section 14A could not be invoked in the absence of exempt income.
• PCIT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd., ITA No. 51 of 2016 (Bombay High Court) — Listed among the assessee’s authorities before the CIT(A) concerning disallowance under section 14A where no exempt income was earned.
• Cheminvest Ltd. v. CIT-IV (Delhi High Court) — Cited by the assessee before the CIT(A) in support of its no-exempt-income contention.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of NFAC, Delhi [for brevity “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2014-2015, date of order 18.03.2026. The impugned order emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(3)(2), Mumbai (for brevity ‘Ld. AO’), order passed under Section 147 of the Act, date of order 31.05.2023.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act for the impugned AY 2014-15. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessment was reopened and the reassessment order was passed under section 147 of the Act on 31.05.2023. In the reassessment proceedings, the Ld. AO made a disallowance of Rs.91,43,535/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The assessee challenged the said disallowance before the Ld. CIT(A), inter alia, on the ground that no exempt income had been earned during the relevant previous year and, therefore, no disallowance under section 14A of the Act could be made. The Ld. CIT(A), however, rejected the contention by referring to the Explanation inserted in section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2022 and holding that the said Explanation was retrospective in operation and, consequently, section 14A would apply even where no exempt income had been earned. The assessee, being aggrieved, is in appeal before us.

3. The Ld. AR challenged the legal ground related to validity for application of section 14A where the assessee had not earned any exempted income. The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt the issue by referring to the Explanation inserted in section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2022 and holding that the said Explanation was retrospective in operation and, consequently, section 14A would apply even where no exempt income had been earned. So, the impugned assessment year shall be covered with the said provisions. The Ld. AR contended that the observations of the Ld. CIT(A) related to retrospective effect related Explanation in Finance Act, 2022 for section 14A is bad in law. The issue is duly covered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in favour of the assessee in the case of Pr. CIT (Central) v. Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. 448 ITR 674 (Delhi), wherein the Hon’ble Court has considered that the explanation will take effect from 01.04.2022 and cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect. So, the issue is squarely covered with the fact that the assessee had not earned any exempt income. So, section 14A will not apply. The Ld. AR filed the copy of the return where it is clearly depicted that the assessee had not earned any exempt income in the impugned assessment order.

The Ld. DR argued and relied on the orders of revenue authorities. The Ld. DR invited our attention in the impugned appellate order in paragraph number 5.5 to 5.5.2, which is reproduced as below:

“5.5 Ground No. 4: In this ground of appeal, it is contested by the appellant that that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the AO has erred in disallowing INR 91,43,535 under Section 14A on r.w.r 8D on account of investment made in equity shares of M/s Omnesys Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Itwas submitted by appellant that disallowance under Section 14A of the IT Act cannot be made, since the Appellant has not earned any exempt income during the year. In this connection, appellant has relied upon the following case laws:

5.5.1 In this connection, it is observed that an Explanation as under has been subsequently inserted by the Finance Act, 2022 wef 01.04.2022 which reads as under:

“Explanation. For the removal of doubts, its hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Act, the provisions of this section shall apply and shall be deemed to have always applied in a case where the income, not forming part of the total income under this Act, has not accrued or arisen or has not been received during the previous year relevant to an assessment year and the expenditure has been incurred during the said previous year in relation to such income not forming part of the total income.”

5.5.2 The case laws of the higher judicial authorities, as quoted by the appellant above are respectfully perused and appear to be prior to the above amendment in statute. The above amendment clearly provides that section 14A is applicable even in the circumstance when the appellant does not have any exempt income. It is also apparent from the wording of the explanation that the same shall be deemed to have always applied, which is indicative of retrospective operation. In view of the same, I am inclined to agree with the findings of AO on this issue. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.”

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The limited controversy before us is whether, for AY 2014-15, a disallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D can be sustained when admittedly the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year. The assessee has also placed reliance on its return of income to demonstrate that no exempt income was earned during the year. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the disallowance principally by relying upon the Explanation inserted in section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 with effect from 01.04.2022 and treating the said amendment as retrospective. The Ld. CIT(A) observed that, by virtue of the expression “shall be deemed to have always applied”, section 14A would operate even in a year in which no exempt income had accrued, arisen or been received.

6. The issue regarding the temporal operation of the aforesaid amendment has been considered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra). The Hon’ble High Court, after considering the Memorandum to the Finance Bill, 2022 as well as the principles governing retrospective operation of statutory amendments, held that the amendment to section 14A introduced by the Finance Act, 2022, though couched as being “for removal of doubts”, cannot be presumed to have retrospective effect where it alters or changes the law as it earlier stood. The amendment was held to take effect from 01.04.2022 and to apply in relation to AY 2022-23 and subsequent assessment years.

7. In the present case, the impugned assessment year is A.Y. 2014-15, which is prior to the effective date of the amendment. Therefore, respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra), the Explanation inserted in section 14A by the Finance Act, 2022 cannot be applied retrospectively to the year under consideration. The material placed before us further indicates that the assessee had not earned any exempt income during the relevant previous year. Accordingly, in the facts of the present case and respectfully following the ratio laid down in Era Infrastructure (India) Ltd. (supra), the disallowance of Rs.91,43,535/- made under section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be sustained. The finding of the Ld. CIT(A) treating the amendment brought by the Finance Act, 2022 as retrospective is, therefore, set aside and the impugned disallowance is deleted. The ground raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed.

8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 6592/Mum/2026 is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05th day of October 2026.