Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (11) TMI 118 - ITAT MUMBAIAddition made in respect of Interim Bonus paid to the income of the appellant - Whether the appellant has correctly computed the amount of surplus in accordance with the provisions of section 44 of the Act r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule to the Act, wherein income is offered basis actuarial report as reported in Form - I - HELD THAT:- We have perused the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2011-12 [2017 (9) TMI 1994 - ITAT MUMBAI]which is on identical issue and has been decided in favour of the assessee by remitting the issue back to the AO to examine the factual matrix/utilization of surplus and to decide in accordance with law Deduction u/s 80G - AO has disallowed on the ground that such deductions are duplicate in nature since the income is considered on the basis of actuarial valuation - CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance made by the AO - HELD THAT:- This issue has already been decided against the assessee in its own case [2022 (4) TMI 1461 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held assessee has not refuted contentions of the Revenue. It is a trait law that the Assessing Officer has no power to go behind accounts drawn in First Schedule applicable to insurance companies, however, the Assessing Officer can always examine correctness of the claim of the assessee with regard to deduction claimed after computation of income. The intent of Legislature while framing special provision for insurance companies can by no means be to allow the benefit of double deduction of the same amount. The CIT(A) in the impugned order has illustrated the impact of assessess’e claim of donation as expenditure in P&L account on actuarial valuation. The non-obstinate clause does not impinge the powers of Assessing Officer to examine deductions claimed after computation of income. The Assessing Officer after examining the treatment given by assessee to the donation made to the foundation concluded that the assessee has taken undue benefit of double deduction of the same amount, hence, disallowed assessee’s claim made after computation of income. The findings of the Assessing Officer have been upheld by the CIT(A) . We concur with the findings of the CIT(A) on this issue - Decided against the assessee. Disallowance u/s 14A read with rule 8D - HELD THAT:- When the Ld. CIT(A) has decided this issue in favour of the assessee by following the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2015-16 [2022 (4) TMI 1461 - ITAT MUMBAI] on identical facts which is covered by the decision rendered by co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in Birla Sunlife Insurance Company and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2010 (9) TMI 1117 - ITAT MUMBAI] we find no illegality or perversity in deletion of addition made by the AO under section 14A read with rule 8D of the Act, hence grounds No.1, 2 & 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
|