9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1803X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n its own case appeals had not raised any grievance with regard to the order of the Tribunal to the extent it holds that no tax is deductable u/s194D of the Act in respect of payment of reinsurance commission - HELD THAT:- Revenue has accepted the impugned order of the Tribunal so far as the above issue is concerned. Therefore, this question does not give rise to any substantial question of law, particularly, in the absence of any change in facts and law being pointed out to us or any other feature which would warrant that this appeal to be prosecuted by the Revenue. No substantial questions of law Appeal admitted on substantial questions of law framed as Question Nos.(ii), (iii), (iv), (v). - INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 533 OF 2017 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed u/s 44 of the IT Act ? (iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amortized amount of the premium on investments amounting to ₹ 2,23,48,000/- cannot added back to the balance of the profits as there is no specific prohibition against the allowance of such expenditure u/s 30 to 43b of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even through such expenditure is to added back in terms of Clause 5(a) of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ? (v) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Tribunal was justified in holding that the preoperative expenses amounting to ₹ 1,40,30,352/- can be amortized and claimed over a period of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. The impugned order dismissed the Revenue s Appeal by placing reliance upon order dated 29 October 2010 of its Coordinate Bench relating to Assessment Year 2005-06 to 2008-09 on the same issue. It also placed reliance upon the decision of its Coordinate Bench in the case of General Insurance Corpn. of India v. Asstt. CIT [2009] 28 SOT 453 (Mum.) as the same issue is decided in favour of the Respondent herein. (ii). Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue very fairly states that being aggrieved by the order dated 29 October, 2010 of the Tribunal in the Respondent-assessee s own case, the Revenue had filed appeals to this Court being Income Tax Appeal Nos.1693 of 2011, 1740 of 2011, 1769 of 2011 and 1773 of 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
