TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1754X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue. Addition made on account of deduction claimed on Dividend Income u/s 10(34) - whether dividend income was assessable under the head income from business and profession and cannot be computed separately to claim exemption u/s 10(34) as this will amount to violation of provision of section 44 of the Income Tax Act - HELD THAT:- As in the assessee s own case for the A.Y.2010-11 in [ 2017 (1) TMI 1760 - ITAT MUMBAI] qua the provisions of section 44 of the Act, we find that the finding of the CIT (A) in para 5.3 of his order is fair and reasonable as the same is taken based on the various binding judicial precedents in the cases of LIC vs. Addl. CIT. [ 1977 (11) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], ICICI Prudential Insurance vs. ACIT; [ 2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI ], and SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd vs. CIT etc [ 2014 (5) TMI 1067 - ITAT MUMBAI ] Accordingly, we affirm the order of the CIT (A) on this issue too. Thus, both the issues raised by the Revenue are allowed in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A. No.1912/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 7-8-2019 - SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JJ. Appellant by: Shri Manjunatha Swamy (DR) Respondent by: Shri Ketan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed u/s 10(34) of the Act, hence, the claim of the assessee was declined and the said amount was added to the income of the assessee. The assessee earned the income from pension scheme in sum of ₹ 4,35,76,280/- which was claimed as exempt. The claim of the assessee was declined and the said amount was also added to the income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed at loss in sum of Rs.(-)39,58,40,522/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE No. 1 4. Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of addition raised on account of exemption of income from pension scheme u/s 10(23AAB) of the Act in sum of ₹ 4,35,76,280/-. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the income from the pension fund is not liable to the exempt u/s 44 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition, hence, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable and the same is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e decision of my Id. predecessor has also been affirmed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA No. 7276/M/2014 vide order dated 11.01.2017 by observing and holding as under: On perusal of the order of the CIT (A) and the amended provisions of section 10(34) of the Act, whereby the words other insurer engaged in pension fund are included, we find that the finding of the CIT (A) on the first issue is fair and reasonable. As such, the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in case of the LIC of India Ltd (338 ITR 212) is directly on the issue. Accordingly, the claim of the loss of the Pension Fund is an allowable claim. We approve the conclusions drawn by the CIT (A) vide para 4.3 of his order on this issue. Thus, Ground No. 1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. Facts and issue being the same as that of the earlier year, respectfully following the decision of the Hon ble Tribunal in the appellant s own case, the appellant ground of appeal is allowed. 5. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we find that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of the decision of Hon ble ITAT in the assessee s own case for the A.Y.2010-11 in ITA. No. 7276 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vidend under section 10(34). Accordingly, revenue ground on this issue is rejected. (ii) LIC (115 ITR 45) The only effect of section 44 is that the operation of the provisions referred to therein is excluded in the case of an assessee who carries on insurance business and in whose case the provisions of rule 2 of the First Schedule are attracted. If the deductions which are claimed by the assessee do not fall within the provisions in the case of an assesses whose assessment is governed by section 44 read with rule 2 in the First Schedule is not excluded. LIC vs. Addl. C/T1TA Nos.3702, 3703,6221/Mum/2012 We find that the issue of admissibility of provisions of section 10(34) has been considered by the 'F' bench of Mumbai Tribunal while deciding the appeals filed by AO in the cases of /CC/ Prudential Insurance (ITA No. 7765/Mum/2010A.Y.2005- 06dt.14-09 2012). Respectfully following the above, we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.10. (iv) SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs. It. CIT ITA Nos.3800 to 3801/Mum /2008, ITA No.1501/Mum/2009, ITA No.5670/Mum/2009. ITA No. 4139/Mum/2008, ITA No. 3346/Mum/2009, IA No. 5759/Mum/2009: In connect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
