TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t order dated 30 December 2009 held that no adjustment of the Actuarial valuation is to be done by following the decision of the Apex Court in LIC (supra). Therefore we find no substantial question of law arising for our consideration. Income on shareholders' account taxed as income from other sources - whether income earned on shareholders' account is not an income which represents income on account of Life Insurance Business? - Held that:- In terms of Section 44 of the Act, such income has to be taxed in accordance with First Schedule as provided therein. None of the authorities under the Act nor even before us is it urged that the assessee is carrying on separate business other than life insurance business. Accordingly, the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in interpreting Section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule that the Legislature consciously omitted incorporation of the provision of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act 1999 and Regulations made thereunder in Rule 2 of the First Schedule which 'refers' only to un-amended Insurance Act 1938 and Regulations made thereunder? 3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in allowing the relief to the assessee by holding that surplus available both in Policy Holders Account and Share Holder's Account is to be consolidated and only net surplus is to be taxed as income from Insurance Business? 4) Whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... off are also accordingly required to be considered as part of the surplus and taxable under Section 44 of the I.T. Act? 8) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in allowing relief to the assessee by holding that surplus available in Share Holders Account is not to be taxed separately as income from other sources and at the normal corporate rate and holding that surplus from Share Holders Account was only part of income from insurance business arrived at after combining surplus available in Share Holders Account with the surplus available in Policy Holders Account and then and taxing this 'net surplus' arrived at, at the rate specified u/s. 115B of the Act? 3. It is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. In view of the fact that the impugned order has merely followed the decision of the Apex Court, we see no substantial question of law for our consideration. Accordingly, Question No.6 is not entertained. 5. So far as Question No.8 is concerned, the grievance of the revenue is that the income on shareholders' account has to be taxed as income from other sources. This on the ground that the income earned on shareholders' account is not an income which represents income on account of Life Insurance Business. Therefore it is the revenue's contention that it has to be taxed as income from other sources. The impugned order while allowing the assessee's appeal holds that income earned on shareholders' amount has to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
