SIL Investment Ltd. v. ACIT

148 TTJ 213Income Tax Appellate Tribunal2012#4968 most cited

What is SIL Investment Ltd. v. ACIT authority for?

A claim for deduction made via a note appended to the original return of income, along with a duly filed audit report in Form No. 10CCB certifying such claims, forms an integral part of the return and is admissible.

23

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

SIL Investment Ltd. v. ACIT · 148 TTJ 213 · Section 80IA · Section 80IB · audit report · Form 10CCB · deduction claim · return of income · appellate authorities

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 115JBSection 132Section 144BSection 144C(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 201(1A)

Issues it is cited on

profit split methodfunctional analysissection 92fsection 40(a)(ii)section 115jasection 32(1)(ii)section 115jb(2)section 80hhcdeduction under section 80iadeduction u/s 80iasection 80asection 32(1)

Judgments citing SIL Investment Ltd. v. ACIT

Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2268/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)

…in considering all the aforesaid contentions rather affirmed the addition made by the AO and relied upon judgment cited as Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT - 347 ITR 272 (Del.), CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. - 320 ITR 518 (P&H) and SIL Investment Ltd. Vs. ACIT – 148 TTJ 213 (Delhi Bench). “12. The ratio of the judgment cited as Maxopp Investments Limited (supra) passed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is that “under section 14A(2,) it is a condition precedent for Assessing Officer to determine amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income; that he must record his dis-satisfaction with correctn…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Eicher Motors Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2228/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Gaurav Jain and Ms. Bhavita Kumar, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Senior DR
Section 115JSection 14ASection 35Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(iv)

…in considering all the aforesaid contentions rather affirmed the addition made by the AO and relied upon judgment cited as Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs. CIT - 347 ITR 272 (Del.), CIT vs. Hero Cycles Ltd. - 320 ITR 518 (P&H) and SIL Investment Ltd. Vs. ACIT – 148 TTJ 213 (Delhi Bench). “12. The ratio of the judgment cited as Maxopp Investments Limited (supra) passed by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court is that “under section 14A(2,) it is a condition precedent for Assessing Officer to determine amount of expenditure incurred in relation to exempt income; that he must record his dis-satisfaction with correctn…

Hero Motocorp Limited, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1545/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Oct 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. I. C. Sudhir & Shri Prashant Maharishihero Motocorp Limited, Jcit, 34, Basant Lok, Vasant Range-1, New Delhi Vs. Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0812J (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community Vs. New Delhi Centre, Basant Lok, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi-110057 (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, M/S. Hero Moto Corp. Circle-11(1), Ltd., 34, Community

For Appellant: Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Sh. NC Sawain, CIT DR
Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…no disallowance of the interest expenditure is warranted as per provisions of said Rule: i. TML Drive Lines Ltd vs. ACIT: ii. ACIT vs. Champion Commercial Co. Ltd: 139 ITD 108 iii. Max India Limited vs. DCIT: ITA No. 274/2012 iv. SIL Investment Ltd. vs ACIT: 148 TTJ 213 v. M/s. Auchtel Products Ltd. vs ACIT: I.T.A. No. 3183 /Mum/2011 vi. JK Investors (Bombay) Ltd vs. ACIT: vii. DCIT vs Ashish Jhunjhunwala: I.T.A No. 1809/Kol/2012. According to him Further, it has been held that disallowance of interest on borrowed funds under section 14A could not be made where the appellant was having mixed pool of funds and al…