9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bstantial question of law:- 1. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law, in applying its decision in assessee's own case of A.Y. 2008-09 to the present case under consideration of A.Y. 2005-06 when the nature of additions in both assessment years are markedly different? 2. Whether upon facts and circumstances of the case, the Hon'ble ITAT was justified in law, in allowing the entire claim of keyman insurance premium expense for A.Y. 2005-06 by ignoring the fact that the CIT (Administration) in his order u/s 263 has held that the expenses related to the period beyond 31.03.2005 and the same cannot be held allowable in the present year since the assessee maintains its books on accru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IT(A) vide order dated 15.12.2011 (Annexure A-III) allowed the appeal and deleted the addition of Rs. 84,68,494/- made by the Assessing Officer. The revenue assailed the order, Annexure A-III, in appeal before the Tribunal who vide order dated 3.9.2015 (Annexure A-IV) upheld the order of the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present appeal by the revenue. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the revenue. 4. The following two issues arise for our consideration in this appeal:- (i) Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction on account of premium paid on Keyman Insurance Policies of its partners? (ii) Whether the premium paid by the assessee related to period beyond 31.3.2005 and thus, not allowable deduction for the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 90 lacs as deduction whereas the assessment was framed by your goodself vide order dated 16.11.2009 u/s 143(3) of the Act and your goodself had held that the deduction of Keyman insurance expenditure should only to be allowed on accrual basis and thus, out of the total figure of Rs. 90 lacs, Rs. 5,31,506/- was held to be expenditure related to the assessment year 2004-05 and remaining Rs. 84,68,494/- was held to be expenditure pertaining to the assessment year 2005-06 which is the year under consideration. (c) Even in assessment year 2005-06, the assessee has paid total premium of Rs. 90 lacs on the said Keyman insurance policies and has been claimed as deduction. (d) Thus, it is clarified that both unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
