9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1259X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessment Years 200607 and 200809. 2. Mr. Suresh Kumar, the learned Counsel for the revenue urges the following common substantial questions of law in the two assessment years for our consideration: "1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in interpreting that on account of "legislation by incorporation", 'only' the "un-amended" Insurance Act 1938 and the Regulations thereunder became part of Section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule of the I.T. Rules? 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in interpreting Section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule that the Legislature consciously omitted incorporation of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reserve" need to be made to arrive at "taxable surplus"? 7) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition made on account of claim of 100% depreciation ignoring the facts that Actuarial surplus is determined on the basis of the total assets of the company and therefore by not capitalizing the above assets, the assets of the assessee company are understated in the books and thereby it has an impact of reducing the surplus or increase in the deficit and therefore, the assets so written off are also accordingly required to be considered as part of the surplus and taxable under Section 44 of the I.T. Act? 8) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 ITR 773, wherein the Apex Court has held that the Assessing Officer has no power to modify the account after Actuarial valuation is done. It is also pertinent to note that for the Assessment Year 200708, the Assessing Officer had raised an identical issue during the assessment proceedings and thereafter by the assessment order dated 30 December 2009 held that no adjustment of the Actuarial valuation is to be done by following the decision of the Apex Court in LIC (supra). Therefore we find no substantial question of law arising for our consideration. In view of the fact that the impugned order has merely followed the decision of the Apex Court, we see no substantial question of law for our consideration. Accordingly, Question No.6 is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
