9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llant's claim of sec.10(34). Disallowance u/s 14A - HELD THAT:- As relying on ICICI PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO LTD.[ 2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI] we hold that the provisions of section 14A are not attracted in the case of Insurance Companies. - ITA No. 6725/MUM/2019 - - - Dated:- 30-8-2021 - Shri Vikas Awasthy, Judicial Member And Shri M.Balaganesh, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sh. R.K. Sahu For the Respondent : Shri Farookh V. Irani ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-20, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) ] dated 30.08.2019 for Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. 2. The Revenue in appeal has raised following grounds of appeal assailing the order of CIT(A): 1. On the facts circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to exclude income from pension fund of ₹ 17,52,19,809/- u/s 10(23AAB) without considering the fact that such income cannot be allowed as exempt when the profit of the company are taxable as per the provision of section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p before the Tribunal in assessee s own case in AY 2010-11, 2011-12 2013-14. The Tribunal has consistently decided this issue in favour of the assessee. The ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed that in ground no.3 of appeal, the Department has assailed the findings of CIT(A) deleting disallowance made under section 14A of the Act. The assessee is engaged in business of Life Insurance, the Tribunal in various decisions has time and again held that the provisions of section 14A are not attracted in the case of companies engaged in Insurance Business. In support of his contentions, the ld. Counsel placed reliance on following decisions: 1. ICICI Prudential Insurance v/s. ACIT, ITA No. 6854/Mum/2010 for AY 2005-06 decided on 14.09.2012. 2. SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. ITA No. 5670/Mum/2009 for AY 2006-07, decided on 23.05.2014. 3. IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company Ltd., ITA No. 1044/Mum/2018 for AY 2012-13 decided on 24.07.2019. 4. Birla Sun Life Insurance Company Ltd., ITA No. 602/Mum/2009 for AY 2004-05 decided on 09.09.2010. 4. Per contra, Sh. R.K. Sahu representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order. However, the ld. DR fair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The AO was, therefore, not correct in stating that the appellant had made the claim u/s 10(23AAB) by filing revised computation of income only without filing revised return of income. I find that the issue of whether income/loss from pension fund scheme should be excluded from the computation of income as provided under section 44 of Act has been examined by my Id. predecessor in the appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 wherein it was observed and held as under: 4.3 I have considered facts and circumstances of The case, appellant's submissions. This issue had come into consideration of Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. (2011) 12 taxmann.com 388 (Born) wherein it is held as under: Section 44 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 - Insurance business- Assessment year 2002- 03 - Whether amount set apart by insurance company towards solvency margin as per directions given by IRDA is to be excluded while computing actuarial valuation surplus - Held yes -Whether pension fund like Jeevan Suraksha Fund would continue to be governed by provisions of section 44 irrespective of fact that income from such fund is exempted, or not and, therefore, ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this stage. Accordingly, this issue is decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Since the issue in present appeal is identical, the ground no.1 of the appeal is liable to be dismissed for parity of reasons. The second limb of ld. DR s argument is that the claim if at all is to be allowed should be restricted to the claim made in return of income. In the instant case the assessee filed revised computation of claim at the time of assessment proceedings.The CIT(A) accepted the enhanced claim made in revised computation. Once the assessee is held to be eligible for claiming the benefit of exemption u/s. 10(23AAB) of the Act, the exemption of correct amount should be allowed to the assessee. If the assessee failed to revise its claim by way of revised return of income, for any reason whatsoever, the assessee is not estopped to make correct claim by way of revised computation. The revised claim can be entertained in appellate proceedings. We find no infirmity in the action of CIT(A) to allow revised enhanced claim. The ground no.1 of the appeal by Revenue is thus dismissed. 6. The issue raised in ground no.2 of present appeal is in respect of deduction on divide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admissibility of provisions of section 10(34) has been considered by the 'F' bench of Mumbai Tribunal while deciding the appeals filed by AO in the cases of /CC/ Prudential Insurance (ITA No. 7765/Mum/2010A.Y.2005-06dt.14-09 2012). Respectfully following the above, we hold that the assessee is entitled for exemption u/s.10. (iv) SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. vs. It. CIT ITA Nos.3800 to 3801/Mum /2008, ITA No.1501/Mum/2009, ITA No.5670/Mum/2009. ITA No. 4139/Mum/2008, ITA No. 3346/Mum/2009, IA No. 5759/Mum/2009: In connection with Revenue's appeal for AY 2005-06, the parties mentioned that there are four main issues that require specific adjudication. They are... (c) exclusion from total income the exempted income under section 10(34) and 10(38) and 10(23AA8) of the Act. In connection with issue at (c) above it is the claim of the assessee that the same is required to be adjudicated considering the decisions of tribunal in case of /C/C/ Prudential Insurance and 1_I0 supra. These decisions are not in existence at the relevant point of time. Considering the new the said decisions and after granting reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssue before the Tribunal was applicability of provisions of section 14A of the Act to Insurance Companies. The co-ordinate bench after considering various decisions and examining the facts concluded as under: 17. We have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the Revenue Authorities as well as the decisions of the Tribunal cited before us. On perusal of the decision of the ITAT in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance (supra) as well as another decision in the case of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company (supra), we find revenue raised the arguments revolving around the applicability of the judgment in the case of Godrej Boyce Mfg Co Ltd, supra. Despite the same, the Tribunal considered the said judgment and still allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, in view of the special provisions applicable to the insurance companies, we are of the opinion that the provisions of section 14A r.w.r. 8D were held not applicable to the insurance companies i.e., ICICI Prudential Insurance, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company. Therefore, the SBI Life Insurance Company Limited assessee in the present case should not be any exception. Considering the settled nature of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
