9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s materially erred in considering the fact that for A.Y. 2005-06, the Revenue has accepted that the premium of Keyman Insurance Policy of the partners of the firm is wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business is allowable as business expenditure, however, factually, even for AY 2005-06 the said issue was sought to be re-opened by the Revenue by way of re-assessment proceedings – it was held to be bad on the ground of jurisdiction and not on merits – thus, the matter is liable to be set aside and matter remitted back to the Tribunal to decide the appeal – Decided in favour of Revenue. - Tax Appeal No.13 of 2012 Tax Appeal No.506 of 2014 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2014 - M. R. Shah and K. J. Thaker,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Nitin M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l question of law: [A] Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts, in deleting the addition of ₹ 4,15,20,000/- claimed towards Keyman Insurance Premium following their earlier decision on the identical issue involved for AY 2006-07 and without considering the criteria for calculating the limits for sum assured prescribed by the insurance company which has been regulated by IRDA and without which the value of a Keyman would be arbitrary and discretionary ? 4. We have heard Mr. Nitin Mehta learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Mr. S.N. Soparkar learned advocate for the respondent-assessee. As the present appeals are required to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal on the ground stated hereina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned Tribunal has dismissed the appeal preferred by the Revenue that the premium paid in the current financial year was of second and third installments and the first installment of the premium was paid in A.Y. 2005-06 by the assessee and not disputed by the Revenue. Therefore, with respect to AY 2006-07 and 2007-08 also by impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has held that the premium on the Keyman Insurance Policy of partner of the first is wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business and is allowable as business expenditure. However, it appears that the learned Tribunal has considered and/or decided the said issue on merits. 7. It is reported that as such even the aforesaid issue for AY 2005-06 was not decid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sputed by Mr. Soparkar learned advocate for the respondent-assessee. 9. In view of above, as such the impugned judgment and orders deserve to be quashed and set aside and matter requires to be remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide the appeal and the issue involve in the appeal in accordance with law and on merits. 10. In view of above and for the reasons recorded, both these Tax Appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal are hereby quashed and set aside and the matters are remanded to the learned Tribunal to decide the issues involved in the matter, in accordance with law and on merits. Both these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
