TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s. 44 of the Act r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule - HELD THAT:- As relying on ICICI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.[ 2015 (7) TMI 1259 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] the proposed question does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. Addition made on account of Provision made in share holder's account for incremental liability towards employees benefit pertaining to earlier years - HELD THAT:- It is agreed position between the parties that the issue arising herein stands concluded in favour of the Respondent Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Apex Court in LIC vs. CIT [ 1963 (12) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] - In the above view, as the question stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evelopment Authority Act 1999 and regulations thereunder and accordingly allowing adjustment from the 'surplus' worked as per actuarial valuation [and as shown by the assessee in Form1] in violation of the ratio of the Apex Court in the case of LIC vs CIT 51 ITR 778 ? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in interpreting that on account of legislation by incorporation , 'only' the unamended Insurance Act 1938 and the Regulations thereunder became part of Section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule of the I.T. Rules ? 3. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in interpreting Section 44 r.w. Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that even the assessee insurance company uses the nomenclature expenses other than those directly related to insurance business while computing the surplus in the Share Holders Account and treating it as part of Insurance Business ? 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was correct in concluding that transfer from Share Holders Account to Policy Holder's Account and shown as part of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s. 44 of the Act r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule ? 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was cor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de to arrive at taxable surplus? 3. Re. Question Nos.(1),(4), (6) and (9): (a) With regard to these questions, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Revenue, very fairly states that these questions do not arise from the order of the Tribunal. (b) In view of the above submission, these questions do not give rise to any substantial questions of law. Thus, not entertained. 4. Re. Question (5): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal decided the issue herein in favour of the Respondent Assessee by following its decision in the case of CIT vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2008-09. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal in respect of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntertaining the present appeal. (c) In the above view, the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 6. Re. Question No.(10): (a) It is agreed position between the parties that the issue arising herein stands concluded in favour of the Respondent Assessee and against the Revenue by the decision of Apex Court in LIC vs. CIT 51 ITR page 773. (b) In the above view, as the question stands concluded by the decision of the Apex Court in LIC (supra), the question as proposed does not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 7. Re. Question No. (13): (a) The impugned order of the Tribunal decided the issue herein in favour of the Respondent Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
