9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 372X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Appellant : Mr Rohit Madan, Sr Standing counsel with Mr Akash Vajpai, Adv. For the Respondent : None ORDER 1. ITA No. 482 of 2015 pertains to the Assessment Year ('AY') 2007-08 and ITA No. 480 of 2015 pertains to the AY 2008-09. In both the AYs, one of the common questions sought to be urged by the Revenue is that in the impugned order dated 12th December 2014, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') has erred in deleting the additions made by the Assessing Officer ('AO') by disallowing the business expenditure claimed in respect of 'keyman insurance policy'. 2. The plea sought to be advanced is that the policy taken by the Assessee in the name of Mr. Deepak Kothari who was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s income under Section 37(1) of the Act. The two CBDT circulars referred to are dated 3rd February 1964 and 18th February 1998. The aforementioned CBDT circulars did not restrict the deduction only in the case of the policies that satisfy the requirements of IRDA. 5. If the intention was to place any such restriction then there should be an appropriate amendment to the law. That would make the Assessee aware of the legal requirements that have to be satisfied before the deduction can be claimed. Having allowed a similar deduction in the previous years the Revenue cannot spring a surprise on the Assessee by seeking to rely on the IRDA circular only for the AYs in question. In the facts of the present case, the Court is of the view that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of capital gain amounting to ₹ 50 lakh is justified . The ITAT has also concurred in the above view of the CIT (A). 9. Before this Court, it was sought to be urged on behalf of the Revenue that the aforementioned sum of ₹ 50 lakhs should in fact have been treated as business income. The Court finds that no such plea was taken by the Revenue at any stage of the proceedings. The stand of the Revenue as reflected in the order of the AO was to treat the said sum of ₹ 50 lakhs as capital gains. The Court declines to permit the Revenue to change its stand. 10. Consequently, the Court does not find any substantial question of law arising from the impugned order of the ITAT which requires examination. 11. The appeals ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
