9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it this question. This is because the facts on record are rather clear. The respondent assessee is an insurance company. The assessee and the other insurance company had jointly insured a certain risk. The assessee had received the entire premium, part of which was paid to the co-insurer in the proportion of its risk insured. This is clearly, therefore, not a case for payment of commission. This is what the Commissioner in his legal order has held. In that view of the matter, these additional questions are also not considered. - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.541 OF 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2019 - AKIL KURESHI S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. Mr. Suresh Kumar with Sumandevi yadav, Priyanka Thakur, Smita Thakur Mohinee Chaugule for Appellant Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision under the Income Tax Act to admit such an allowance? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the preoperative amortized expenses can be claimed as a deduction in a previous yuear in which it has not been incurred? (v) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal as justifed in holding that profit of ₹ 6,37,88,000/- on sale of investment is exmpt in view of the CBDT Circular No.528 dated 16.12.1988 even though the said circular was for General Insurance Corporation of India and its subsidiaries which are wholly owned enterprises of the Union of India? (vi) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve deducted tax at source in terms of section 194H of the Income Tax Act (for short, the Act ). Since the assessee had not done so, the Revenue desired to disallow the expenditure in terms of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. 4. The learned Counsel for the Revenue drew our attention to the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has without recording its separate reasons, confirmed the decision of the CIT (Appeals). With respect to this suggestion, we are in agreement. We wish the Tribunal had given, howsoever brief, its reasons for rejecting the Revenue s ground of appeal. However, this would not persuade us to admit this question. This is because the facts on record are rather clear. The respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
