9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (10) TMI 558 - AT - Income TaxTaxability u/s 44 - Taxability of life insurance business - consistently followed and accepted accounting policy - transfer between share holder s account and policy holder s account - assessee prepared its accounts as per the format prescribed by the IRDA in tune with the Insurance Act 1938 - HELD THAT - As decided in own case for AY 2012-13 2019 (11) TMI 1463 - ITAT MUMBAI the appellant has to prepare its accounts as per the formats prescribed by the IRDA under the Insurance Act, 1938. These accounts have accordingly been prepared by the appellant and have been subject to statutory audit. Further, the accounting policy of claiming 100% depreciation in its financial statements has been consistently followed by the appellant and has also been duly accepted by the IRDA. The appellant has stated that the assets on which depreciation has been claimed have been initially capitalized in the books and then 100% depreciation has been claimed on these assets. Taxation of Lift Insurance is presumptive taxation with only the surplus as disclosed by Form I being subjected to tax - as per the provisions of law only those adjustments which are expressly not prohibited under section 44 of the Act could be made. Consequently depreciation which has been debited in the audited accounts as per the consistently followed and accepted accounting policy need not be disallowed. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the amount is consistent with the accounting principles followed and the provisions of section 44 read with Rule 2 of the 1st Schedule, Therefore we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue Claim of 100% depreciation on fixed assets - HELD THAT - Action of the CIT(A) in deleting the amount is consistent with the accounting principles followed and the provisions of section 44 read with Rule 2 of the 1st Schedule, Therefore we uphold the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Tax neutrality of transfer between shareholder’s account and policyholder’s account. 2. Interpretation of Section 44 read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act. 3. Taxation of surplus in shareholder’s account as part of insurance business income. 4. Allowance of 100% depreciation claim. 5. Impact of negative reserve on taxable surplus. 6. Exemption of dividend income under Section 10(34). Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Tax Neutrality of Transfer Between Shareholder’s Account and Policyholder’s Account: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in concluding that the transfer between shareholder’s account and policyholder’s account is tax neutral and not taxable under Section 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule. The Tribunal found that this issue had already been decided in favor of the assessee in previous assessment years, where it was held that such transfers are indeed tax neutral. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that the Revenue had not provided new evidence to challenge this finding. 2. Interpretation of Section 44 Read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act: The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) misinterpreted Section 44 read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule by not incorporating provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act (IRDA) 1999. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions, which clarified that the actuarial valuation should be made in accordance with the Insurance Act 1938, and the IRDA provisions were consciously omitted from Rule 2. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground, citing judicial precedence. 3. Taxation of Surplus in Shareholder’s Account as Part of Insurance Business Income: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)’s decision to treat the surplus in the shareholder’s account as part of the insurance business income, taxable under Section 44 at the rates specified under Section 115B. The Tribunal reiterated its previous rulings that all income, including that in the shareholder’s account, should be consolidated and taxed as part of the insurance business. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, affirming that the CIT(A)’s approach was consistent with the law. 4. Allowance of 100% Depreciation Claim: The Revenue objected to the CIT(A)’s deletion of the addition made on account of the 100% depreciation claim, arguing that it affects the actuarial surplus. The Tribunal found that the assessee’s accounting policy of claiming 100% depreciation was consistent with the IRDA-prescribed format and had been accepted in previous years. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, noting that only adjustments expressly prohibited under Section 44 could be made, and depreciation was not one of them. 5. Impact of Negative Reserve on Taxable Surplus: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) erred in deciding that the negative reserve has no impact on reducing the taxable surplus. The Tribunal referred to its earlier decisions, which held that the actuarial valuation and the resulting surplus or deficit should be computed in accordance with the Insurance Act 1938. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, maintaining that the CIT(A)’s decision was in line with judicial precedence. 6. Exemption of Dividend Income Under Section 10(34): The Revenue argued that the CIT(A) wrongly exempted the dividend income under Section 10(34), asserting that it should be part of the life insurance business income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s decision, referencing previous rulings which established that dividend income, being part of the insurance business, is exempt under Section 10(34). The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on this ground as well. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue’s appeal on all grounds, affirming the CIT(A)’s decisions. The Tribunal found that the issues raised by the Revenue had already been settled in favor of the assessee in previous years, and no new evidence was presented to warrant a different conclusion. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)’s order and dismissed the Revenue’s appeal.
|
