TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 2022
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 2. The Revenue has urged the following questions of law for our consideration : (i) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, the Tribunal was justified in holding that provisions of section 14A of the Act did not apply to Insurance business, even when the assessee has claimed exempted income u/s.10 of the I. T. Act and has also itself made some disallowance uls 14A of the Act in the return?" (ii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, the Tribunal erred in allowing the dividend income of assessee as exempt u/s.10(34) of the I. T. Act, 1961, ignoring the fact that dividend income is considered as part of income of Life lnsurance Business and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ciously omitted incorporation of the provision of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act 1999 and Regulations made thereunder in Rule 2 of the First Schedule which 'refers' only to unamended Insurance Act 1938 and Regulations made thereunder? (vii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, the Tribunal was justified in failing to appreciate the provisions of Section 28 of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act 1999 which clarifies that provisions of IRDA Act are in addition and not in derogation of Insurance Act 1938, thereby implying adoption of IRDA Act and its regulation "legislation by reference" in Section 44 of the I. T. Act r. w. Rule 2 of the First Schedule? (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is not to be taxed separately as "income from other sources" and at the normal corporate rate and holding that surplus from Share Holders Account was only pad of income from insurance business arrived at after" "combining" surplus available in Share Holders Account with the surplus available in Policy Holders Account and then and taxing this 'net surplus' arrived at, at the rates specified u/s.115B of the I.T. Act,1961 ? (xii) Whether on the facts and in circumstances of the case and in Law, the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the fact that even the assessee insurance company uses the nomenclature expenses "other than those directly related to insurance business" while computing the surplus in the Share Holders Account a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tial questions of law. The Revenue has not pointed out any distinguishing features in facts and / or in law warranting a different view in these two appeals. (d) In the above view for the reasons indicated in our order dated 20th July, 2015, these questions do not give rise to any substantial question of law. Thus, not entertained. 5. Regarding question nos.(iii), (iv) and (vii) : (a) We note that the impugned order dated 14th January, 2015 of the Tribunal decided these issues in favour of the respondent assessee by following its orders in respect of the same respondent assessee for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09. The Revenue had preferred appeals against the order of the Tribunal for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09 to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....different view, resulting in this question being raised in these appeals, is pointed out to us. This is more so, because the impugned order dated 14th January, 2015 of the Tribunal merely followed its view taken in the orders dated 14th September, 2012 passed by the Tribunal for Assessment Years 2005-06 to 2008-09. At that time also, before the Tribunal no submission was made that it would not apply to the subject assessment years. A change of view, in given circumstances may arise, however, it cannot be arbitrary on the part of the State. It must bring on record some facts or law which justify the change from the accepted view of the Revenue. Mere change of the Assessing Officer or of the Counsel for the Revenue is not sufficient to justif....