TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 183X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l justice if all the facts are already on record - Following CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India [2011 (8) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Beyond the period of limitation prescribed if an assessee makes a claim such claim cannot be considered by the AO but at the same time a new ground urged before the Appellate Authority always also be considered in the light of the power vested in the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Act - The issue was set aside for fresh adjudication. - ITA No. 8356/Mum/2010, ITA No.8357 & 8358/Mum/2010 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2013 - Shri D. Manmohan And Shri Rajendra,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Ronak Doshi For the Respondent : Shri Ravi Prakash ORDER Per D. Manmohan, V.P. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescription issued by the IRDA; the increase in share capital was necessitated on account of IRDA regulations and hence the expenditure in connection with increase in authorised share capital should be allowed as deduction by treating it as revenue in nature. It was also contended that the increase in share capital is required to augment the business growth and solvency requirement as prescribed by IRDA and hence the ratio laid down by the Apex Court with reference to the expenditure incurred by insurance companies should be applied. The AO as well as the CIT(A) rejected the contention of the assessee. It may be noticed that the learned CIT(A) observed that any argument based on accounting practice vis- -vis a particular line of business c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be allowed as deduction. The learned counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on another decision of the ITAT C Bench, Mumbai in the case of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. (and Group) (ITA No. 2203/Mum/2012 dated 20.09.2013) in support of its contention that ITAT Mumbai Benches have been consistently holding the view that in the case of an assessee company, which is engaged in the business of Life Insurance, the expenditure incurred with regard to increase in share capital is allowable as deduction by treating it as revenue in nature. 7. The learned D.R. fairly submitted that despite the decisions cited by the AO and the learned CIT(A), on which he strongly relied upon, the ITAT had been consistently taking a view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting surplus/(deficit) from the insurance business under section 44 of the Act but subsequently the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, in the case of CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India 338 ITR 212 clarified, vide judgement dated 2nd August, 2011, that while determining the surplus/(deficit) from the insurance business for the purpose of section 44 of the Act loss from Pension Fund has to be considered irrespective of the fact that income from such fund is exempt or not. Immediately there after, i.e. on 4th November, 2011 the assessee moved an additional ground before the Tribunal and thus there was justifiable cause for not raising the issue before the AO as well as the CIT(A) but since all the facts are already on record a legal plea can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
