9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ividend Income u/s 10(34) of the Act, of Rs. 24,78,31,300/- without considering the fact that such dividend income was assessable under the head 'income from business and profession' and cannot be computed separately to claim exemption u/s 10(34) of the Act as this will amount to violation of provision of section 44 of the Act. 3. "On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance made u/s 14A on account of expense related to exempt income on the ground that the provision of section 44 does not provide for such disallowance and at the same time allowing relief on the taxability of dividend income ignoring the provisions of section 44 of the IT Act 1961." 3. Sh. Farookh V. Irani appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted at the outset that the issues raised in ground no. 1 & 2 of the appeal by the Revenue have been considered by the Tribunal in preceding AYs in assessee's own case and have allowed the same in favour of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in ground no.1 of appeal, the Revenue has assailed the findings of CIT(A) in excluding income from Pension fund Rs. 17,52,19,809/- un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhanced claim of pension fund under section 10(23AAB) of the Act, the ld. DR submitted that to the extent of claim made in return of income be allowed and not enhanced amount as claimed in the computation filed during the course of assessment proceedings. 5. We have heard the submissions made by rival sides and have examined the orders of authorities below. Both sides are unanimous in stating that the issue raised in ground no. 1 & 2 of appeal have been considered by the Tribunal in the preceding AYs in assessee's own case. We find that in AY 2013- 14 in ITA No. 1912/Mum/2018 (supra), the Revenue had raised ground assailing exemption allowed to the assessee by the ld. CIT(A) u/s. 10(23AAB) of the Act. The co-ordinate bench upheld the order of CIT(A) thereby confirming assessee's claim of exemption under section 10(23AAB) of the Act. The Tribunal held: "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 Rs. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yes." Following the above decision where loss in pension fund is allowed to be adjusted against allowed from the surplus amount from the insurance business. Following the above decision this ground of appeal is allowed." 5.4 The above 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 appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of deduction claimed on dividend income u/s 10(34) of the Act of Rs. 13,82,68,575/-. At the very outset, the Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee u/s 10(34) of the Act, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, is liable to be set aside. However, on the other hand, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has strongly relied upon the order passed by the CIT(A) in question. Before going further, we deem it necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(a) on record: - " 6.4 I have considered the facts of the case and the appellant's submissions. I find that identical issue had come up for consideration in the appellant's appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein my Id. predecessor had observed and held as under: "5.3 1 have considered the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant's submissions and the case laws supported by the appellant This issue had come into consideration of various judicial rulings which is as under: (i) ICICI Prudential Insurance vs. AC1T ITA Nos. 6854, to 6856,6509,7765 to 7767 and 7213/Mum/2010 "In view of the above and respectfully following the same we ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 11.01.2017 by observing and holding as under: "7. Regarding the 2nd issue, which relates to the disallowance of dividend income u/s 10(34) 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 case of LIC vs Addl. CIT. : ICIC Prudential Insurance vs ACIT; SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd vs C1T etc, (contents on page 8 of the CIT (A) order are relevant . 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 assessee." 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's around of appeal is allowed." 7. On appraisal of the above said finding, we noticed that the CIT(A) has passed the order on the basis of the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case in ITA. No. 7276/M/2014 vide order dated 11.01.2017 for the A.Y.2010-11. The facts are not distinguishable at the stage. No law contrary to the law relied by the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
