9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (3) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... main source of income was the share income from M/s. Ambica Estate. Rebate was granted on the Life Insurance Premium paid in respect of policy in the name of the appellant's wife as a member of the family. Subsequently the Agrl. ITO on the basis of the objection raised by the Audit Party, came to the conclusion that the deduction originally allowed was not permissible as per s. 10(2)(b) of the Act. He accordingly re-assessed the assessments under the s. 35 after denying the deduction originally allowed. The deduction originally allowed and subsequently withdrawn in the re-assessment was on the following amounts; Asst. yrs. Amount allowed as exempt in the original assessment. 1974-75 5,217 1975-76 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gricultural income; (b) any sum paid by such person to effect an insurance on the life of such person or on the life of a wife or husband or dependant son of such person or in respect of a contract for a dependant son of such person, as the case may be, provided that the aggregate of any sums exempted under this clause shall not exceed one sixth of the total agricultural income of the assessee or six thousand rupees, whichever is less: Provided that nothing contained in this clause shall be deemed to entitle a person who is assessed to income-tax under the Indian IT Act 1922 (Central Act XI of 1922) to claim any exemption in respect of any sum referred to in this clause if it was exempted under s. 15 of the said Act.....". It can be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ext, the Supreme Court observed: '...It should be remembered in this connection that the object of enacting s. 15(1) of the Act is the encouragement of thrift and the section should hence be interpreted in such a manner as not to nullify that object. The interpretation placed on behalf ITO he revenue will result in an invidious distinction between an Individual and an HUF which is not supported on reasonable interpretation of the Statue. Having regard to the fact that the section is mainly intended to encourage thrift, we find no merit in the Revenue's contention on the principle of the Supreme Court extracted earlier. 11. Before concluding we will refer to another aspect which is also not less important. Though the Agrl. ITO revised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
