TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....licy of Rs. 73,367/- made by ld. AO. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 73,367/- 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by ld. AO of the tuition fees of Rs. 30,300/- claimed u/s 80C of Income Tax Act, 1961. The action of ld. CIT(A) is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by quashing the said disallowance of Rs. 30,300/-. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld. AO of making ad-hoc disallo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....however, the same was not accepted. 5. In support, reliance was placed on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in case of ACIT vs. Shri Satish Sehrawat in ITA No. 223/D/2012 dated 15.03.2012 wherein it was held as under:- "5. We have heard the ld. DR and gone through the facts of the case. Admittedly, insurance premium is paid year after year for a period of 12 months only. The benefit of premium paid in the preceding year would have been available for a portion of period in the year under consideration. As found out by the ld. CIT(A) , the assessee is following consistently the same method. It is nobody's claim that premium for a period exceeding 12 months had been claimed in the year consideration and has been paid on th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-06 and 2007-08. In these circumstances, we areof the opinion that since the amount has actually been paid and was liability for the year under consideration at the commencement of policy, whichever alternative definition of the word "paid" be applicable to the case of the assessee, it has to be held that this amount was "paid" by the assessee in the year of account in question on a correct interpretation of the word "paid" as used in section 43(2) of the Act. The assessee was entitled to claim this amount as a legitimate deduction in the year of account in question and consequently in the assessment for the relevant assessment year. Here, we may refer to a decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Southern Roadways L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icer. The case of the assessee is that they are following the mercantile system of accounting, the amount has been actually incurred for which liability to pay has arisen in that accounting year. There is no dispute in this case that the amount has been actually paid. In the statement of case also, it is stated that the assessee-company in its accounts treated the above said amount as prepaid and showed it as an asset in its balance-sheet. However, the payments were made in pursuance of demands raised by the postal, telephone and telegraph departments, etc., and claimed as deduction in computing the income from business. The expenditure actually incurred and revenue in nature relating to the business is allowable. Any expenditure n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... allowed by the Revenue in the past, and given by the nature of expenditure of insurance premium in the overall context of the business of the assessee being in the business of dairy marketing, which undisputedly is not going to distort the determination of true profit/loss, such consistent claim of expenditure should not be disturbed. However, where this is the first year of claim of such an expenditure and in which case, the principle of consistency will not apply and infact, the stand taken for the year will set the precedent for the subsequent years. We therefore, set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying as to whether the assessee have been claiming similar expenditure towards insura....