Prior Tribunal rulings on identical facts guided allowance of investment gains, section 10(15) relief, and section 14A treatment; interest levy sustained.

Earlier Tribunal and co-ordinate bench decisions on identical insurance-company facts were followed to support allowance of deduction on gains from sale of investments and exemption under section 10(15), with the same treatment applied to the assessee. The Tribunal also applied its prior order in the assessee's own case to reject disallowance under section 14A for the relevant year. Interest under sections 234B and 234D was treated as mandatory and consequential, so the levy was sustained once statutory conditions were met.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the disallowance of deduction on gains from sale of investments and the denial of exemption under section 10(15) were sustainable; (ii) whether the disallowance under section 14A was justified; (iii) whether interest under sections 234B and 234D was leviable.

Issue (i): whether the disallowance of deduction on gains from sale of investments and the denial of exemption under section 10(15) were sustainable.

Analysis: The disputed additions were covered by earlier orders of the Tribunal in the assessee's own case and by other co-ordinate bench decisions relied on in similar insurance-company matters. Following that binding line of reasoning, the Tribunal affirmed the view that the assessee was entitled to the claimed treatment.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (ii): whether the disallowance under section 14A was justified.

Analysis: The Tribunal followed its earlier order in the assessee's own case for an earlier assessment year on the same issue and applied the same reasoning to the present year.

Conclusion: Decided in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

Issue (iii): whether interest under sections 234B and 234D was leviable.

Analysis: Interest was treated as mandatory and consequential, leaving no scope to delete the levy once the statutory conditions were attracted.

Conclusion: Decided against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's appeal failed, the assessee succeeded on the substantive disallowance issues, and the statutory interest levy was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an issue is covered by earlier binding or followed co-ordinate bench decisions on identical facts, the same view should be applied, and statutory interest that is mandatory and consequential cannot be deleted merely because the main dispute is adjudicated in the assessee's favour.

---