TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1363X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ambit of sec. 194C and it can not be considered for redistribution amongst the labourers. [2] On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the additions of ₹ 4,00,000/- overlooking the fact that the evidence regarding the surrender value of Keyman Insurance Policy endorsed / assigned in favour of Shri Mitesh R Patel was not substantiated. Relief claim in appeal. The order of the CIT(A) on the issues raised in the aforesaid Grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored. 2. Adverting first to ground no.1 in the appeal, facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that e-return declaring income of ₹ 10,53,259/-(before set off of unabsorbed depreciation) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6,52,304 7 Pravin Vasava 1,30,259 8 Pravin D Vasava 1,17,848 9 Punjabhai Vasava 2,08,918 10 Rameshbhai Vasava 5,80,950 11 Ranjitbhai 84,946 12 Sanjaybhai 5,14,871 Total 33,77,874 2.1 To a query by the AO, proposing to disallow the aforesaid amount u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the assessee replied vide their letter dated 08-12-2008 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led. 4. The Revenue is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid findings of the learned CIT(A). The learned DR supported the order of the AO.On the other hand, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee while relying upon the order dated 11-02-2010 of the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench-A in the assessee s own case in ITA nos.3792 2582 to 2584/Ahd/2008 for the AYs 2005-06, 2006-07 2007-08, contended that the Tribunal having upheld the findings of the learned CIT(A) in his order dated 22.5.2008 , there was no merit in the disallowance made by the AO. 5. We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the case as also the aforesaid decision of the ITAT . We find that the ITAT in the aforesaid order dated 11-02-2010 concluded tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that amount was renewal of insurance premium paid to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. on account of policies taken on the life various Directors of the company. On perusal of relevant insurance policy taken in the name of Devendra R Patel, the AO noticed an endorsement reflected that the insurance policy of Devendra R Patel had been assigned to Mitesh R Patel. Since the benefits of the policy were to be enjoyed by the assignee and not by the assessee-company, accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim for ₹ 4,00,000/-. 7. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) after having a remand report from the AO, deleted the disallowance in the following terms:- 4. Last ground of appeal is regarding disallowance of Keyman Policy Insurance of & ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Reference was made to the Assessing Officer regarding appellant's submissions. Copy of clarification from ICICI Prudential dated 26.8.2008 was also forwarded to the Assessing Officer for comments. The Assessing Officer in her report dated 8.9.2009 has not made any comments on merits of the matter. Assessing Officer's only submission is that clarification in respect of policy had been called for from the Insurance Company, which did not forward the information as called for at that time and it was only on 26.8.2009 that the said clarification has been issued by the Insurance Company at request of assessee. 4.2. I have considered the matter. As per CBDTs Circular No.762, premium on Keyman Insurance premium is an allowable busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
