9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (4) TMI 1076X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tments while computing the income. HELD THAT:- We find that the issue raised in this ground now stands settled by the Tribunal in assessment years 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 etc, in assessee s own case as held that the taxability of income of insurance companies does not extend to taxability of profits on sale of investments for the period assessment years 1989-90 to 2010-2011. Respectfully following the precedent we allow this ground of appeal. Disallowance of expenses u/s.14A - assessee earned interest income from investment made in debentures / bonds and said interest was exempt from income tax u/s.10(23G) - CIT(A) reduced the disallowance - HELD THAT:- We find that the Tribunal in assessee own case held that section 14A contempla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oticed by the A.O. that exemption was claimed in the computation of income for a sum of ₹ 8.24 crore as profit on sale of investments as per Rule 5(b) of the First Schedule. The Assessing Officer did not accept the assessee s contention as in his opinion there was no provision in Rule 5(b) of First Schedule for reducing the profit from sale of investments disclosed in the annual accounts. **The learned CIT(A) did not accept the assessee s contention and approved the view of the Assessing Officer in not excluding the profit from sale of investments while computing the income. 3. Before us the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that it is a recurring issue. He invited our attention towards the copy of the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penses of ₹ 2,668.48 lakhs. The Assessing Officer, applying the provisions of section 14A, made disallowance of expenses amounting to ₹ 89.28 lakhs. The learned CIT(A) reduced the disallowance to ₹ 75.82 lakhs, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before us. 6. Before us the learned Counsel for the assessee contended that similar issue came up before the Tribunal in the afore-noted order by which it has been held that the provisions of section 14 are not applicable to the assessee as section 44 applies to the insurance companies notwithstanding anything contrary contained within the provisions of the Income-tax Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under different heads. It was, therefore, sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etion of the entire addition. This ground is allowed. 10. Second ground about the head under which such profit on sale of investments should be taxed becomes academic in view of our decision on ground no.1. This ground is dismissed. 11. Ground no.3 of the assessee s appeal and the only issue of Revenue s appeal is against the disallowance u/s.14A. The Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 1,48,18,000 u/s.14A of the Act, which was reduced in the first appeal to ₹ 6,18,500. Both the sides are in appeal against their respective stands. 12. Here also we find that the facts and circumstances of these grounds are similar to those of assessment year 2003-2004 which has been disposed off above. Following the view taken by us in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
