TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 1319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Act, 1938 and in terms of the IRDA regulations. It was also asserted that the prescribed methodology for valuation of the assets and determination of the liabilities was followed, on the basis of which, the actuarial valuation of surplus was arrived at for the purpose of taxation. The contentions of the assessee were not accepted by the Assessing Officer and accordingly he disallowed the adjustment of negative reserves amounting. As a common point between the parties that the decision of the Tribunal dt. 3.4.2013 [ 2013 (6) TMI 377 - ITAT MUMBAI ] pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 on an identical issue continues to hold the field as it has not been altered by any higher authority. As a consequence, we find no error on the part o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account of loss from Jeevan Suraksha Fund ignoring the settled position of law that income includes loss and that the loss from Jeevan Suraksha fund can be set off against taxable income of the assessee corporation despite the fact that Jeevan Suraksha Fund is covered u/s 10(23AAB) of the IT Act whereby the income including the loss is not includible in the total income. 1.1. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is justified in ignoring the fact that the non obstante clause in section 44 is not extended to section 10(23AAB) of income tax Act. 1.2. Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer the assessee, being a life insurance company, computed its income on the basis of actuarial valuation surplus. However, the assessee had set-off the deficit arrived at in the Jeevan Suraksha Fund against the actuarial valuation surplus while computing the total income. The Assessing Officer denied the claim on the ground that in terms of Sec. 10(23AAB) of the Act income from Jeevan Suraksha Fund was exempt, and therefore, such deficit was not eligible for set-off against other taxable income of the assessee. The CIT(A) has since allowed the claim of the assessee by relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee‟s own case in respect of Assessment Years 2002-03 to 2006-07. Against su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pointed out that similar issue was decided by the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee vide order dt. 3.4.2013 in ITA Nos. 3702, 6221, 3703/Mum/2012. On the basis of the decision of the Tribunal it was sought to be canvassed that the addition was not merited. The CIT(A) has since deleted the addition by following the decision of the Tribunal dt. 3.4.2013 (supra) in the assessee‟s own case. 9. Before us, it was a common point between the parties that the decision of the Tribunal dt. 3.4.2013 (supra) pertaining to Assessment Year 2009-10 on an identical issue continues to hold the field as it has not been altered by any higher authority. As a consequence, we find no error on the part of the CIT(A) in deleting the im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
