9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 1354X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning disallowance of Keyman Insurance Premium paid of Rs, 13,06,512 and Rs, 13,08,552 for the assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively. 3. Facts relating to the disputed issue which are more or less common in both the appeals are, the assessee a company is engaged in the business of share and stock broking. In course of assessment proceedings for the impugned assessment years the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has claimed deduction on account of premium paid towards Keyman Insurance policy taken in the name of two directors of the company called upon the assessee to furnish necessary details. After verifying the details furnished by the assessee and referring to the characteristic of Keyman Insurance the Assessing Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the company, hence, the expenses incurred in respect of such policy cannot be allowed as business expenditure. In this regard, he also endorsed the reasoning of the Assessing Officer. 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the assessee has taken the Keyman Insurance policy in the name of two of its directors in the year 2004. He submitted, the aforesaid Keyman Insurance policy was taken as per the Board resolution dated 24th February 2004. He submitted that considering the experience of the directors and their contribution to the business of the company the Board decided to take Keyman Insurance policy in the name of the directors. He submitted that the first premium of the aforesaid policies was paid on 27th February ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the directors to the company due to their experience, the assessee has thought it prudent to make the Keyman Insurance policy in their name. The decision of the assessee as a prudent businessman cannot be called into question as it is the assessee who can only decide how to conduct the affairs of the business and what is beneficial to the business. Thus, it was submitted that assessee's claim of deduction on account of premium paid towards keyman Insurance policy should be allowed. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised Representative relied upon the following decisions:- i) Pharma Search v/s ACIT, [2012] 53 SOT 1 (Mum.) (Trib.); ii) Shri Nidhi Corporation v/s ACIT, [2014] 151 ITD 470 (Mum.) (Trib.); iii) ITO v/s M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned assessment year in no other assessment year deduction claimed on account of premium paid has been disallowed. Thus, when it is a fact on record that the Insurance policies are continuing from the year 2004 and in the preceding assessment years assessee's claim of deduction in respect of premium paid have been allowed by the Assessing Officer in scrutiny assessments, in the absence of any material change in facts the deduction claimed in respect of premium paid cannot be disallowed in the impugned assessment year, as the rule of consistency must be applied. The learned Departmental Representative except stating that in the preceding assessment years the Assessing Officer has not properly examined the issue has not brought to our no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
