<?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 (2) TMI 1322 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283700</link>
    <description>Insurance business income is to be computed under section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule, and the article notes that jurisdictional High Court authority supported exemption under section 10 for the assessee. Prior period expenditure was treated as not allowable in the current year in line with the connected proceedings. Section 115JB was held inapplicable because the insurer&#039;s accounts were not prepared under the Companies Act, and a voluntary mistaken computation could not create liability where the statute did not apply. The write-off of investments and leave encashment disallowance were maintained, while the claim for pension and gratuity fund contributions was rejected and restored to the assessing officer to follow the coordinate bench view.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 07 Oct 2019 21:29:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=590020" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 1322 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283700</link>
      <description>Insurance business income is to be computed under section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule, and the article notes that jurisdictional High Court authority supported exemption under section 10 for the assessee. Prior period expenditure was treated as not allowable in the current year in line with the connected proceedings. Section 115JB was held inapplicable because the insurer&#039;s accounts were not prepared under the Companies Act, and a voluntary mistaken computation could not create liability where the statute did not apply. The write-off of investments and leave encashment disallowance were maintained, while the claim for pension and gratuity fund contributions was rejected and restored to the assessing officer to follow the coordinate bench view.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>