TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1204X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... two appeals are filed by the revenue for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 against the order of CIT(A)-2, Mumbai dated 06.03.2012. Since common issues are involved, these appeals are considered together and are decided by this common order. For the sake of record, the grounds raised by the revenue in appeal No. ITA No.3938/Mum/12 for assessment year 2007-08 are extracted as under: 1. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w, the ld. CIT(A) was correct in law in holding that provision of 115O read with section-Q of the Act are not applicable in the case of Assessee. 2. Briefly stated, it is the case of the AO that the assessee corporation declared its income on the basis of actuarial valuation surplus. The assessee claimed set off of deficit of Rs.98,95,87,89,023/- from Jeevan Suraksha Fund. The AO has taken a s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue. Since the issue is already crystallized by the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court quoted supra, there is no merit in the revenue s contentions raised in the grounds. In view of this, the ground is rejected. 3. Ground No. 2 pertains to order of CIT(A) on issue of provisions of section 115 0 r.w.s. 115Q of the Act as not applicable to the assessee. 3.1 Briefly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the LIC Act, 1956 is not dividend as defined under section 2(22) of the Income- tax Act. Similar issue was also decided in the favour of the assessee corporation for the AY. 1999-00 to 2001-02 by the ITAT vide its consolidated order passed on 15/10/2007. Further, the issue has been decided in the favour of the assessee corporation for the A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA no. 4993/M/07 dated 23/4/2009 wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITA No.3939/Mum/12 for Assessment year 2008-09: 6. Similar issues were raised in ground No.1 and 2 in this year also. The ld. CIT(A) following the order in assessment year 2007-08 deleted the additions. Since these two issues are decided in the other appeal in ITA No.3938/Mum/12, for the reasons stated therein, there is no merit in the grounds raised by the Revenue. Accordingly, they are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
