TMI Blog2011 (5) TMI 855X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee-firm has purchased Keyman insurance policy in the form of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance and Life Insurance Corporation of India, in the name of two partners Shri Bhavin N.Patel and Mrs. Hetal Bhavin Patel and debited the premium paid of Rs.82,48,725 to the profit and loss account. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount under section 10(10D) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The assessee was asked to explain as to why the insurance premium of Rs. 82,48,725 should not be disallowed. The assessee filed a detailed reply, inter alia, stating that the insurance policies have been taken by the partnership-firm and not the individual partners and that the insurance premium is also paid by the firm and entire insurance pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Income (Appeals) following his own appellate order and the order of the Tribunal, however, allowed the deduction of Rs. 82,48,725 under section 37(1) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals), the Revenue is in appeal before us challenging in all the grounds the deletion of disallowance of premium of Rs. 82,48,725 paid by the firm in respect of the insurance policy on the lives of the partners under Keyman insurance policy. At the time of hearing, the learned Departmental representative submits that for the reasons as discussed in the assessment order, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in deleting the disallowance of premium of Rs. 82,48,725 paid by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee while referring to letter of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance appearing at pages 41 and 42 of the assessee's paper book submits that the assessee has shown the payment received from the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance on the surrender of the Keyman insurance policy in the hands of the assessee-firm in the relevant assessment year. He, therefore, submits that the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) be upheld. We have carefully considered the submissions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record. We find that the facts are not in dispute. We further find that there is no material on record to show that the assessee-firm has taken the Keyman insurance policy for the personal benef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
