<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (9) TMI 798 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264130</link>
    <description>Premium on a keyman insurance policy structured as a unit linked endowment plan was held deductible because the statutory definition under the Explanation to section 10(10D) requires only a life insurance policy taken on the life of a person connected with the business. The Tribunal rejected extra-statutory restrictions based on IRDA circulars, the policy&#039;s investment component, or the fact that the insured was a partner, and held that these features did not take the policy outside the definition. Section 14A was held inapplicable on the admitted facts, and the premium was treated as commercial expenditure incurred to protect the business against the death of a key person, so the disallowance was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2016 18:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=397798" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 798 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264130</link>
      <description>Premium on a keyman insurance policy structured as a unit linked endowment plan was held deductible because the statutory definition under the Explanation to section 10(10D) requires only a life insurance policy taken on the life of a person connected with the business. The Tribunal rejected extra-statutory restrictions based on IRDA circulars, the policy&#039;s investment component, or the fact that the insured was a partner, and held that these features did not take the policy outside the definition. Section 14A was held inapplicable on the admitted facts, and the premium was treated as commercial expenditure incurred to protect the business against the death of a key person, so the disallowance was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264130</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>