323 ITR518 (Punj & Har) ACIT v. SIL Investment Ltd.

54 SOT 356Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#5540 most cited

What is 323 ITR518 (Punj & Har) ACIT v. SIL Investment Ltd. authority for?

Disallowance under Section 14A read with Rule 8D cannot be made if the Assessing Officer fails to discharge the onus of proving that expenditure beyond what the assessee has identified was incurred in earning exempt income.

21

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

323 ITR 518 · 54 SOT 356 · ACIT v. SIL Investment Ltd. · Section 14A · Rule 8D · exempt income · dividend income · onus of proof · Assessing Officer · disallowance

Judgments citing 323 ITR518 (Punj & Har) ACIT v. SIL Investment Ltd.

Rajshri Productions P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT RG 16(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2049/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh, Assessment Year: 2009-10 Rajshri Productions (P) Ltd. Acit, Bhavana, 1St Floor, 422, Veer Range-16(1), बनाम/ Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400025 Mumbai-400020 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.Aaacr4139G

Section 143(1)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 2

…ee has not incurred and claimed any expenditure for earning the exempt income.” 2.6. Similar views were also expressed by the Coordinate Benches in the case of Relaxo Footwears Ltd, vs. Addl. CIT (2012) 50 SOT 102 and Priya Exhibitors (P) Ltd vs. ACIT (2012) 54 SOT 356. In the case of Relaxo Footwears Ltd, it was held as under: “The Assessing Officer should have considered the claim of the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred in relation to earning the exempt income. If the claim was not found to be in consonance with the facts on record, it could have been rejected and disallowance could have been ma…