https://www.taxtmi.com/css/info/rss_sitemap/rss_feed.css?v=1746094055 https://www.taxtmi.com Business/Tax/Law/GST/India/Taxation/Policies/Legal/Corporate Tax/Personal Tax/Vat Law/Legal Information/Tax Information/Legal Services/Tax Services Tax Management India. Com / MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd. All rights reserved. One stop solution for Direct Taxes and Indirect Taxes https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287545 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287545 Following orders of the higher appellate authorities to decide the issue, where such order not accepted by the Department - Issues decided relying on assessee s own case and identical issues were decided by the Tribunal in the case of ICICI Prudential s case [ 2012 (11) TMI 13 - ITAT MUMBAI] - all grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are covered in favour of the assessee - HELD THAT:- As decided in AGARWAL WAREHOUSING AND LEASING LTD. (NOW ADMANUM FINANCE LTD.) [ 2002 (7) TMI 86 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] relying on KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION case [ 1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT] principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the Department - in itself an objectionable phrase and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessee and chaos in administration of tax laws. Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Sayaji Iron and Engineering Co. v. CIT [ 2001 (7) TMI 70 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] reiterated that no Tribunal of fact has any right or jurisdiction to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to the one reached by another bench of the same Tribunal on the same facts, and if a bench of a Tribunal on identical facts is allowed to come to a conclusion directly opposed to the conclusion reached by another bench of the Tribunal on an earlier occasion, that will be destructive of the institutional integrity itself. We follow the decision of the Tribunal mentioned hereinbefore and dismiss all the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in its appeal. CIT(A) directed the AO to assessee the total income of the assessee in accordance with the order of the ITAT in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and then give effect to the provisions of section 72 of the Act in respect of carry forward of losses - HELD THAT:- As the above direction of the Ld. CIT(A) is based on facts and law, we uphold the same. Accordingly, we dismiss this ground of appeal. Reduction of provision for fringe benefit tax/wealth tax - assessee pleaded that the AO while determining the income in the Shareholder s Account(SHA), added back the amount being provision for fringe benefit tax/wealth tax - CIT(A) observed from the assessment order that no such amount has been added by the AO, while computing the total income of the assessee - HELD THAT:- Assessee is governed by provisions of section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of the Act and both Policyholders Account ( PHA ) and SHA form part of life insurance business of the assessee. The assessee has offered its income including results in SHA while determining income as per section 44 r.w. Rule 2 of First Schedule to the Act. Thus, the provision made towards fringe benefit tax/wealth tax is an allowable expense while determining the assessee s income from life insurance business. We direct the AO to allow Rs. 7,69,438/- as an allowable expense while determining income/(loss) in SHA. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 25 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530