9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the value of annuity policies should be included in the net wealth of the assessees. 2. Whether annuity policies purchased by film artistes constitute an asset under the Wealth-tax Act. 3. Whether the assessees are entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of the Act. Issue 1: The issue revolves around whether the value of annuity policies should be considered in the net wealth of the assessees. The assessees argued that annuity policies should be exempt under section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal formed a Special Bench to consider this issue due to conflicting decisions. The annuity policies in question were single premium policies issued by the Life Insurance Corporation of India, providing annuities over the policy's life. The Assessing Officer included them as assets, but the appellate authority ruled in favor of the assessees based on previous decisions. The Tribunal analyzed the policies, noting they did not allow surrender or commutation, concluding that they should not be included based on the premium paid. Issue 2: The question is whether annuity policies purchased by film artistes constitute assets under the Wealth-tax Act. The Bombay High Court's decision in a similar case highlighted that annuities are assets if they preclude commutation. The court observed that annuities ensure fixed payments regardless of the corpus income, making them assets. The court upheld the view that annuities are includible in net wealth. In the present cases, film artistes invested in annuity policies as part of their remuneration agreements, with no surrender or commutation options. The amendment to section 2(e) of the Act clarified that such annuities are assets, aligning with the Bombay High Court's interpretation. Issue 3: The issue concerns the exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of the Act. This section exempts certain assets from wealth tax, including the right or interest in insurance policies before maturity. However, for annuity policies to qualify for this exemption, they must meet specific criteria, such as having a premium payable over less than ten years. In the present cases, the annuity policies were single premium policies without surrender or commutation options. The assessees were only entitled to receive annual payments as beneficiaries, not having any other rights under the policies. As such, the conditions for exemption under section 5(1)(vi) were not met, leading to the conclusion that the assessees were not entitled to the deduction. In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-D ruled that the annuity policies should be considered assets under the Wealth-tax Act, denying the assessees the exemption under section 5(1)(vi) of the Act. The decision was based on the nature of the policies, the absence of surrender or commutation options, and the specific conditions outlined in the relevant legal provisions.
|
