Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (11) TMI 1463 - AT - Income TaxAssessment of Life insurance business - Income from annuity - computation of total income for the purpose of determination of income u/s 44 - Whether similar to Pension Business and loss from Pension Scheme as not adjustable against taxable business? - CIT(A) directed the AO to compute exemption u/s 10 (23AAB) after considering the loss under annuity schemes and also to take remedial action for earlier year assessments - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) misunderstood the provisions of section 80CCC and 10(23)AAB of the Act and try to merge the insurance business of annuity plan and pension plan and also presumed that assessee’s line of business of annuity and pension are different and also assessee can claim benefit u/s 80CCC of the Act, which is not correct. The deduction u/s 80CCC also available only to the individual assessee, not to the insurance company. Since assessee’s line of business are only with life cover and other benefits are extended benefits allowed to the policy holders alongwith life cover, therefore presumption drawn by Ld. CIT(A) is not proper and accordingly direction given by the Ld. CIT(A) to enhance assessment is accordingly dismissed. Rule 5 applicability to income from Health Schemes, Group schemes and others treated as non-life insurance schemes - HELD THAT:- All the basic policy are offered by the assessee in term basis insurance plan or life based insurance plan and these plans are offered alongwith additional benefits of saving, health, etc. Most of these plans are approved by IRDA and are term basis alongwith tax benefits includes deduction u/s 80C not u/s 80D. The schemes referred by Ld. CIT(A) are all those schemes which are not term based and it does not have life cover whereas these schemes are purely on health based and covering a short tenure of one year or two year alongwith having a tax benefit u/s 80D. These are the distinguishing features for the insurance plans which one can distinguish from the type of schemes offered by the insurance companies. Plans offered by the assessee are of term basis and life cover with the extended benefit of health and savings, etc. Therefore, these schemes can only be classified as life insurance and which can be considered as part of the main activities of the assessee company. Taxability of incomes in Shareholder’s account - Bringing to tax only the incomes declared in the shareholder's account that too under the head 'other sources of income' - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI] there is a valid argument raised by assessee that both the policyholder's & shareholder's account has to be consolidated into one and transfer from one account to another is tax neutral. What AO has done is to tax the surplus after the funds have been transferred from shareholder's account to the policyholder's account at the gross level while ignoring such transfer in shareholder's account, while bringing to tax only the incomes declared in the shareholder's account that too under the head 'other sources of income'. While giving the finding that assessee is in the life insurance business only and incomes are to be treated as income from life insurance business, the CIT (A) surprisingly in subsequent assessment years appeals accepted AO's contention that surplus in shareholder's account is to be taxed as other sources of income. But once the provisions of section 44 of IT Act are invoked anything contained in the heads of income like income from other sources, capital gains, house property or even interest on securities does not come into play and only first schedule has to be invoked to arrive at the profit. Therefore, in our opinion both the policyholder's and shareholder's account has to be consolidated for the purpose of arriving at the deficit or surplus. Actuarial surplus determined for the purpose of the Insurance Act must be the same as the First Schedule - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI] computation made by assessee is in accordance with Rule-2 of the Insurance Act 1938 according to which only AO can base his computation. This also corresponds to the way incomes were assessed in earlier years ie. the correct method as per Rule 2 and Sec 44 of IT ACT. In view of the discussion above and after analyzing the Forms, Regulations and Provisions we have no hesitation to hold that the assessee working of actuarial surplus/ deficit is in accordance with Rule 2 of First Schedule. Therefore, assessee grounds on this issue are allowed Subjecting negative reserve to tax - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI]examining the method of accounting and the mandate given by regulations to appoint Actuarial on the concept of mathematical reserves, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The mathematical reserve is part of Actuarial valuation and the surplus as discussed in Form-I under Regulation 4 takes into consideration this mathematical reserve also. Therefore the order of the CIT(A) is approve. Moreover the Assessing Officer has no power to modify the amount after actuarial valuation was done, which was the basis for assessment under Rule 2 of 1st Schedule r.w.s. 44 of the I.T. Act. Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case [2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hereby accept the argument of learned Authorized Representative to the extent that in the present situation the provisions of s. 14A need not to apply while granting exempt ion to an income earned on sale of investment primarily because of the reason of the withdrawal or deletion of sub- r. 5(b) to First Schedule of s. 44 of IT Act. Once we have taken this view therefore the enhancement as proposed by learned CIT(A) is reversed and the directions in this regard are set aside. Applying the normal corporate rate of tax instead of rate specified in section 115B of the Act to income treated as other than from the business of insurance - HELD THAT:- As per Insurance Act 1938 all incomes are part of one business only and these incomes are considered as part of same business. Therefore, the incomes in Shareholder's account are to be considered as arising out of Life insurance business only. More over Sec 44 mandates that only First Schedule will apply for computing incomes and excludes other heads of income like, Interest on Securities, income from house property, Capital gains or Income from other sources. Being non-obstante clause, sec. 44 mandates that the profits and gains of insurance business shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in First Schedule. Therefore, the incomes in Shareholder's account are to be taxed as part of life insurance business only, as they are part of same business and investments are made as part of solvency ratio of same business. The grounds are allowed. AO is directed to treat them as part of Life Insurance Business and tax them u/s 115B. See own case[2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI]. Claim of 100% depreciation on fixed assets - HELD THAT:- Taxation of Life Insurance is presumptive taxation with only the surplus as disclosed by Form I being subjected to tax - as per the provisions of law only those adjustments which are expressly not prohibited under section 44 of the Act could be made. Consequently depreciation which has been debited in the audited accounts as per the consistently followed and accepted accounting policy need not be disallowed. Action of the CIT(A) in deleting the amount is consistent with the accounting principles followed and the provisions of section 44 read with Rule 2 of the 1st Schedule. Therefore we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue
|