TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to recognise fee income on a proportionate completion basis and whether Accounting Standard 9 applied to the revenue from third party administration services. (ii) Whether the assessee's activities could be treated as the business of an insurance company.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to recognise fee income on a proportionate completion basis and whether Accounting Standard 9 applied to the revenue from third party administration services.
Analysis: Section 145 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 permits computation of business income in accordance with the method of accounting regularly employed by the assessee. The assessee changed from invoice-based recognition to proportionate completion, which matched the nature of services rendered throughout the policy period. Revenue recognition in service transactions may properly follow the proportionate completion method where services are performed over time. Accounting Standard 9 was held to apply because the assessee was rendering financial and administrative services, not receiving income from insurance contracts themselves. The revenue did not establish that the changed method distorted profits or that it was impermissible, and the later acceptance of the method in subsequent assessment years supported the assessee's approach.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Issue (ii): Whether the assessee's activities could be treated as the business of an insurance company.
Analysis: The governing regulatory framework distinguishes a third party administrator from an insurer. A third party administrator is engaged by an insurer to provide specified health services for fee or remuneration, whereas an insurer is separately defined under the Insurance Act, 1938. On that basis, the assessee's business was held to be different from insurance business. The contrary view was not accepted.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.
Final Conclusion: The revenue failed to establish any error in the concurrent findings, and the additions made on the basis of immediate invoice recognition and insurance-business characterisation were not sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: An assessee may change to a regularly employed accounting method that more appropriately reflects service income, and such method cannot be rejected unless the revenue shows distortion of profits; a third party administrator is not an insurer merely because its services are rendered in connection with insurance contracts.
TaxTMI 
