9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 125 - AT - Income TaxSale of investment - taxability in hands of assessee - Held that - The profits on sale of investment in the years before us, which are year prior to the years with effect from which prospective amendment is made, are not taxable in the hands of the assessee. The taxability of income of insurance companies under the head income from business and profession as governed by provisions of section 44 read with first schedule to the Income Tax Act, does not extend to taxability of profits on sale of investments So far as the assessment years before us are concerned. We direct the AO to exclude profit on sale of investments from income of the assessee as not liable to be taxed. See Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Addl CIT 2009 (8) TMI 810 - ITAT PUNE-A - Decided in favour of assessee Allowability of club expenses - TDS liability - Held that - The payment of club fees was with a view to enable the assessee to improve its business relations and prospects. Therefore the payment of club fees was business expenditure not falling u/s. 40(a)(v) of the Act. See Otis Elevator Company (India) Limited Versus Commissioner Of Income-Tax 1991 (4) TMI 53 - BOMBAY High Court . Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Samtel Color Ltd ( 2009 (1) TMI 26 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) has held that admission fee paid to Corporate Membership was an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and not towards capital account as it only facilitated the smooth and efficient running of a business enterprise and did not add to the profit earning apparatus of a business enterprise - Decided in favour of assessee MAT applicability - whether the provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act are applicable to the assessee or not? - Held that - We have perused the orders of the Co-ordinate Bench for the assessment year 2007-08 we find that the Co-ordinate Bench following the decision in the case of Krung Thai Bank PCL Vs DIT 2010 (9) TMI 18 - ITAT, MUMBAI directed the AO to exempt the assessee from the applicability of provisions of Sec. 115JB of the Act.- Decided in favour of assessee Credit for Dividend Distribution Tax u/s. 115-0 - Held that - We find considerable force in the contention of the assessee. It is the submission of the assessee that it had paid Dividend Distribution tax to the extent of ₹ 58.56 crores out of which ₹ 47 crores have been given credit. The Ld. CIT(A) directed to verify the contention of the assessee that it had paid dividend distribution tax of ₹ 58.56 crores and it should be given credit. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to give credit for the Dividend Distribution tax paid by the assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of profit on sale of investment. 2. Disallowance of expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. 3. Allowability of club expenses as business expenditure. 4. Applicability of provisions under Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act. 5. Credit for Dividend Distribution Tax under Section 115-O. Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Taxability of Profit on Sale of Investment: The primary issue was whether the profit on the sale of investments is taxable in the hands of the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions in the assessee's own case for assessment years 2002-03 to 2004-05 and 2005-06 to 2009-10, wherein it was held that profits on the sale of investments prior to the assessment year 2011-12 are not taxable. This conclusion was based on the specific legal provisions governing the computation of taxable profits of insurance companies, particularly Section 44 read with the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal upheld that there were no specific provisions for making an adjustment on account of profits on the sale of investment after the removal of clause 5(b) with effect from 1st April 1989 and until clause 5(b)(ii) was inserted with effect from 1st April 2011. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to exclude profits on the sale of investments from the income of the assessee liable to be taxed. 2. Disallowance of Expenditure under Section 14A: The second issue was the disallowance made by the AO on account of expenditure under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2006-07, where it was held that Section 14A does not apply to insurance companies due to the specific provisions of Section 44 read with the First Schedule. The Tribunal noted that the computation of profits for insurance companies is governed by these specific provisions, which do not allow for disallowance under Section 14A. Therefore, the Tribunal decided this issue in favor of the assessee, following the consistent decisions of various benches of the Tribunal. 3. Allowability of Club Expenses: The third issue concerned the allowability of club expenses as business expenditure. The AO had disallowed these expenses, but the CIT(A) allowed them. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, relying on the Bombay High Court's decision in the case of Otis Elevator Co (India) Ltd Vs CIT, which held that club expenses incurred to improve business relations and prospects are allowable as business expenditure. The Tribunal also referred to similar decisions by the Delhi High Court and the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which supported the view that club membership fees paid for business purposes are revenue expenditures. 4. Applicability of Provisions under Section 115JB: The fourth issue was whether the provisions of Section 115JB of the Income Tax Act (Minimum Alternate Tax) are applicable to the assessee. The Tribunal referred to its decision in the assessee's own case for the assessment year 2007-08, where it was held that MAT provisions are not applicable to general insurance companies. The Tribunal followed this decision and affirmed the CIT(A)'s order exempting the assessee from the applicability of Section 115JB. 5. Credit for Dividend Distribution Tax under Section 115-O: The final issue was whether the CIT(A) erred in entertaining the ground of appeal regarding credit for Dividend Distribution Tax under Section 115-O. The Revenue contended that this issue did not emanate from the assessment order and was not one of the specified issues under Section 246A on which an appeal can be preferred. However, the Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that it had paid Dividend Distribution Tax of Rs. 58.56 crores, out of which only Rs. 47 crores had been given credit. The CIT(A) had directed the AO to verify and grant credit for the Dividend Distribution Tax paid by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no infirmity in the direction to verify and grant the appropriate credit. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions on all the issues, providing relief to the assessee. The order was pronounced in the open court on 2nd March 2016.
|
