<?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 1114 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264446</link>
    <description>Premium paid on keyman insurance policies was treated as deductible business expenditure because the policies were life insurance policies on persons connected with the business and therefore satisfied the statutory definition of a keyman insurance policy. The view that only a pure life policy or term policy could qualify was rejected as having no basis in the statute. Circulars issued by the insurance regulator were held not to govern interpretation of the Income-tax Act. The disallowance was also rejected on the ground of lack of commercial expediency, and the expenditure was held allowable. A contrary coordinate bench view was treated as non-binding in the circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:32:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398701" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 1114 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264446</link>
      <description>Premium paid on keyman insurance policies was treated as deductible business expenditure because the policies were life insurance policies on persons connected with the business and therefore satisfied the statutory definition of a keyman insurance policy. The view that only a pure life policy or term policy could qualify was rejected as having no basis in the statute. Circulars issued by the insurance regulator were held not to govern interpretation of the Income-tax Act. The disallowance was also rejected on the ground of lack of commercial expediency, and the expenditure was held allowable. A contrary coordinate bench view was treated as non-binding in the circumstances.</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=264446</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>