9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1981 - AT - Income TaxTreatment of profits arising on sale / redemption of investments which also includes the amount received on profits on account of amortization - HELD THAT - The issue arising in the present ground of appeal similar to the issue in earlier years and the Assessing Officer had also disallowed the claim of assessee, following the deletion made in earlier years. However, following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that while computing income from business in the hands of assessee under section 44 of the Act and First Schedule of the Act, profit / loss on sale / redemption of securities or investments including the amortization of securities is to be reduced from taxable income of assessee. The grounds of appeal No.1.1 and 1.2 raised by the assessee are thus, allowed. Disallowance under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D - HELD THAT - Tribunal after considering the issue held the same to be identical to the issue before the Tribunal in assessment year 2003-04 and following the same parity of reasoning deleted the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and the DRP but confirmed the disallowance made by the assessee under section 14A of the Act at ₹ 49,42,631/-. Following the same parity of reasoning, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition worked out under section 14A of the Act except to the extent of ₹ 2,43,836/-, which has been suo motu disallowed by the assessee in the computation of income. Disallowance u/s 14A of the Act in respect of profits and gains on sale/redemption of investments claimed as non taxable - HELD THAT - In view of our order holding that the provisions of section 14A are not applicable, then the same even applied for income claimed as exempt under section 10 of the Act. Hence, the grounds of appeal No.1 to 3 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Disallowance made u/s 40(a)(i) in respect of re-insurance premium paid to Allianz SE, Germany - HELD THAT - We find that the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09 2020 (1) TMI 1566 - ITAT PUNE has elaborately discussed the issue and had decided the same. The Tribunal reversed the findings of DRP and held that the assessee was entitled to claim the deduction on account of reinsurance premium of ₹ 62.7 crores paid to the Germany company. We find that the issue raised in the ground of appeal No.4 is identical to the issue before the Tribunal and following the same parity of reasoning which are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow the claim of assessee with regard to reinsurance premium of ₹ 69.86 crores paid to the Germany company. The ground of appeal No.4 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed. Disallowing risk inspection charges for want of purchase orders - HELD THAT - The issue arising in the present appeal before us is identical to the issue before the Tribunal in assessment year 2008-09. Mere absence of purchase orders would not disentitles the assessee from the claim of risk inspection charges. However, we find merit in the plea of assessee that in the absence of any adverse evidences collected during the year, no disallowance is to be made in the hands of assessee in the instant assessment year. The assessee has further filed purchase orders by way of additional evidence before us. However, in the entirety of the ratio laid down in assessee s own case in assessment year 2008-09, absence of purchase orders would not disentitles the assessee to claim the said expenditure. Accordingly, we allow the claim of assessee in entirety. The ground of appeal No.5 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of profits on sale/redemption of investments. 2. Disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act regarding reinsurance premium. 4. Disallowance of risk inspection charges. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of Profits on Sale/Redemption of Investments: The assessee contested the treatment of profits on sale/redemption of investments amounting to ?22,30,24,779 as taxable. The Assessing Officer (AO) and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] upheld the taxability based on Section 44 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 5 of the First Schedule. The AO noted that there was no provision in Rule 5 to exclude such profits from total income. The CIT(A) relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. CIT. However, the Tribunal had previously allowed the assessee's appeal in earlier years, holding that profits on sale/redemption of investments were not taxable. The Tribunal reiterated its stance, referencing the deletion of Rule 5(b) and the legislative intent, and allowed the appeal in favor of the assessee, confirming that such profits should not be taxed. 2. Disallowance under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act: The AO disallowed ?26,90,338 under Section 14A read with Rule 8D, related to exempt dividend/interest income. The assessee argued that the AO did not follow the binding decisions from earlier years. The Tribunal had previously ruled that Section 14A was not applicable to insurance companies as their income was computed under Section 44 and the First Schedule. The Tribunal upheld this view, directing the deletion of the disallowance under Section 14A except for the amount suo motu disallowed by the assessee. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal on this issue was dismissed. 3. Disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act Regarding Reinsurance Premium: The AO disallowed ?69,86,05,662 paid as reinsurance premium to Allianz SE, Germany, for not withholding tax under Section 195. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the previous year, where it had allowed the assessee's claim, holding that the reinsurance premium paid to the German company was deductible. The Tribunal noted that no appeal was filed against this decision for the subsequent years, and the Revenue had not invoked the said provision in later assessments. Thus, the Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim, and the appeal by the assessee was allowed. 4. Disallowance of Risk Inspection Charges: The AO disallowed ?5,02,98,035 for the want of purchase orders, following the directions from the earlier year. The CIT(A) upheld this disallowance. The assessee argued that substantial purchase orders were filed, and the AO did not find any discrepancy in the evidences provided. The Tribunal, referencing its earlier decision, noted that the absence of purchase orders should not disentitle the assessee from claiming the expenditure. The Tribunal allowed the claim in entirety, emphasizing that the assessee had justified the genuineness and business expediency of the expenses. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee on issues related to the taxability of profits on sale/redemption of investments, disallowance under Section 14A, and disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) regarding reinsurance premium. The Tribunal also allowed the claim for risk inspection charges, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objections. The decisions were based on consistency with previous rulings and the legislative intent behind the provisions.
|
