9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1469X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usiness - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the coordinate bench in the assessee s own case relating to asst. year 2009-10 [ 2017 (5) TMI 1769 - ITAT BA NGALORE] and also decision rendered in the case of PNB Met Life [ 2016 (7) TMI 12 - ITAT BANGALORE]. Since the ld CIT(A has followed the decision rendered by Tribunal on this issue, we do not find any necessity to interfere with the order passed by him. Claim of set off of loss computed under the Pension account against business income - HELD THAT:- We noticed that the coordinate bench has examined an identical issue and decided the same in favour of the assessee by following the decision rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of LIC of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt from the premium income under policy holder fund, which is the only income from the life insurance business to he determined U/s 44 of the IT Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has already admitted the SLP of Department on this issue in the case of CIT Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2016) 242 Taxman 97 (SC). 2. CIT(A) erred in holding that the profits of the Life Insurance business would be determined as per the financial accounts and not as per the surplus reflected in Form I of 'Acturial Valuation' as per the provisions of Section 44 of the IT Act read with the First Schedule. 3. CIT(A) erred in not excluding the loss of ₹ 93,39,11,564/- in the pension account, which is exempt U/s 10(23AAB) of IT Act, and which should ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (Mumbai ITAT) which was subsequently upheld by Bombay High Court in (73 Taxmann.com 2011) 5. The ld CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and accordingly, by following the above said decisions, held as under:- "Having considered the submissions, it is observed that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the above judicial pronouncements including that, of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of the Appellant for the Asst, Year 200010 in ITA No,792/Bang/2016) I Bangalore ITATI and also in the case of PNB Met.life in ITA No 1508/Bang/2015) [Bangalore TAT] AY 2011-12 & FFA No, 179/Bang/2017) AY 2012-13. The facts and circumstances of the matter under consideration are similar to that of the facts in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assed by the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.335, 338/Bang/2014 and IT(TP)A No.243/Bang/2015 47. The next grievance projected by the assessee in ground No.II comprising of ground 1 to 6 is with regard to action of the Revenue authorities in not allowing loss incurred from pension fund which is exempt u/s 10(23AAB) of the Act amounting to ₹ 87, 85,43,000/- while determining the actuarial valuation surplus u/s 44 of the Act. We have already seen that in asst. year 2009-10 this claim was allowed by the CIT(A). As far as present asst. year is concerned, the assessee made a claim on its deduction by letter dated 17/4/2013. Copy of which is at page 366 of the assesee's paper book. Though the claim was not made in return of income or revised retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asad 99 ITR 118 has held that when any income is exempt at source, the loss would not consequently enter into computation of income. The relevant portion is as follows- "It may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand in vacuo. It involves the notion of set-off Its sole purpose is to set off the loss against the profits of a subsequent year. It pre-supposes the permissibility and possibility of the carriedforward loss being absorbed or set off against the profits and gains, if any, of the subsequent year Set off implies that the tax is exigible and the assessee wants to adjust the loss against profit to reduce the tax demand. It follows that if such set-off is not permissible or possible owing to the income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me has to be computed as laid down u/s 44 of the Act. Section 44 of the Act starts with a non obstante clause and overrides the provisions of the Act relating to computation of income under the various heads of income including income under the head profit and gains of business of insurance. Therefore, we are of the view that stand taken by the DRP cannot be accepted. We, therefore, direct that loss from pension fund which is exempt u/s10(23AAB) be excluded while determining surplus as per actuarial valuation surplus u/s 44 of the Act. Ground II raised by the assesese is allowed." 9. We noticed that the ld CIT(A) has followed the decision rendered by the Bombay High Court in the case of LIC of India (Supra). Accordingly we do not find any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
