TMI Blog2012 (2) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to the article or thing that was already being manufactured by the assessee It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has not manufactured woolen carpets and dhurries. - Decided in favour of assessee - ITA no. 5791/Mum./2010 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2012 - SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessee by : Mr. Rajan R. Vora Revenue by : Mr. Parthasarathi Naik O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. This appeal preferred by the assessee, is directed against the impugned order dated 31st May 2010, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) XXIX, Mumbai, for assessment year 2007-08, on the following ground:- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decided is that the whether the two partners, whose lives have been insured are keymen of the business or not. It can be seen that they are managing partners and certainly their life is of primary importance to the business. During the insurance period the firm remains protected from any contingency. The argument of the Assessing Officer that partnership will continue even after death of the managing partners is not tenable. Even if the firm exists beyond the period of life of partners its business will be drastically affected with the loss of managing partners. There is likely loss of income, revenue or business. (b) The insurance premium paid for keyman insurance policy in the case of a firm for its partners, has been held as allowab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essee. CIT v/s VTM Ltd., (2009) 319 ITR 336 (Mad.); CIT v/s Hi Tech Arai Ltd., (2010) 321 ITR 477 (Mad.); and CIT v/s Texmo Precision Castings (2010) 321 ITR 481 (Mad.) 5. He further submitted that the Assessing Officer had allowed the claim of the assessee both for the earlier assessment year as well as the later assessment year and even on the principle of consistency and certainty, the claim of the assessee has to be allowed. 6. Learned Departmental Representative, Mr. Parthasarathi Naik, representing the Revenue, opposed the contentions of the assessee and submitted that generation of electricity is not manufacture of article or thing . He further submitted that the case laws relied upon by the assessee are the case la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
