TMI Blog2017 (6) TMI 1257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... avour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-2012 [2017 (3) TMI 1696 - ITAT MUMBAI] as held that in determining assessee’s income under section 44, had taken into consideration total surplus as arrived at by actuarial valuation and further held that income from shareholders account was also to be taxed as a part of life insurance business. Assessing Officer has no power to modify the account after actuarial valuation is done. Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No.4038/Mum/2015 - - - Dated:- 23-6-2017 - Shri Shamim Yahya, AM Shri Ravish Sood, JM For the Appellant : Ms.Arju Garodia For the Respondent : Shri Dinkle Hariya ORDER Per Shamim Yahya, AM This ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with Schedule thereto? v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, section 10 of I. T. Act is applicable to insurance business when total income of insurance activity is governed and computed under Schedule 1 of the j. T. Act independent of various computational provisions as prescribed u/s 44 of the Act? vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, income specified to be exempt u/s 10 can be reduced from income of insurance business chargeable to tax u/s 44 of the Act read with Schedule 1 particularly when the section of the Act have to be given effect to in seretum, unless specified otherwise , and consequently having once computed income u/s 44 procedurally, one has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd (i) to (vii) above is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the ITAT in assessee s own case for assessment year 2011-2012 in ITA No.4373/Mum/2015 vide order dated 30.03.2017. 6. Per contra, the learned Departmental Representative did not dispute this proposition. 7. Upon careful consideration, we note that identical issues raised in Ground No.(i) to (vii) above have been dealt with by this Tribunal in the aforesaid order as under:- 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We begin with 1st, 2nd 3rd ground of appeal as they address a common issue. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 10(23AAB), the loss incurred from the said fund could not be adjusted against the taxable income. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals] confirmed the additions made by the AO. On second appeal, the Tribunal deleted the said addition. The revenue filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court The Hon'ble High Court held that (i] amount set apart by insurance company towards solvency margin as per the direction given by IRDA is to be excluded while computing actuarial valuation surplus, and (ii] pension fund like Jeevan Suraksha Fund would continue to be governed by provisions of section 44 irrespective of the fact that income from such fund is exempted, or not and, therefore, even after insertion of section 10(23A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
