2015 (3) TMI 972 - AT - Income Tax

Keyman insurance premium - Disallowance u/s 37 - Genuineness of an expense - Held that - The assessee's case fails on the basis of an inability to discharge the onus to exhibit that the impugned expenditure stood incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of his business, which constitutes the primary condition for deduction under section 37(1), i.e., on facts. On the contrary, for the various reasons cited, its genuineness is in serious doubt. We, accordingly, in view of the foregoing, find no merit in the assessee's case, and dismiss its relevant grounds. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
- Maintainability of the disallowance of expenditure incurred and claimed as keyman insurance premium.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Maintainability of the disallowance of expenditure incurred and claimed as keyman insurance premium

The appeal was directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s order, which partly allowed the assessee's appeal contesting its assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2006-07. The primary issue raised by the assessee was the disallowance of expenditure claimed as keyman insurance premium. The assessee, engaged in the manufacturing business, had a keyman insurance policy on the life of his brother, who assisted in the business. The Revenue contended that the arrangement was for tax benefit only, disallowing the claimed expenditure. The Tribunal referred to a decision by the Bombay High Court, stating that keyman insurance is not limited to an employment contract but includes individuals connected to the business. The Tribunal emphasized the genuineness of the expenditure for business purposes. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee failed to prove that the expenditure was wholly and exclusively for business purposes, raising doubts about its genuineness. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the lack of merit in the assessee's case due to the inability to establish the expenditure's business purpose conclusively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, highlighting the importance of proving that the expenditure was incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes, which was the primary condition for deduction under section 37(1). The Tribunal found the genuineness of the expenditure in serious doubt and therefore upheld the disallowance of the claimed keyman insurance premium.

This detailed analysis provides an in-depth understanding of the judgment's key issues and the Tribunal's rationale behind dismissing the appeal related to the disallowance of the keyman insurance premium expenditure.