TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 1544
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961 has to be computed as per Rule 8D of I.T. Rules, 1962 when the computation of the assesse was not found to be correct and as held in the order of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. 4. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in holding that the premium paid by the assessee on purchase of Government Securities, on Amortisation, was allowable as Revenue Expenditure without appreciating the fact that there is no provision for amortization of such premium in the I.T. Act, 1961. 5. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in holding that the premium paid by the assesse on purchase of Government Securities, on Amortisation, was allowable as Revenue Expenditure without appreciating the fact that such premium paid is capital in nature and hence not allowable u/s 37 of I.T. Act, 1961. 6. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT (A) has erred in holding that the provis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peal by following the decision of this Court in General Insurance Corporation v/s. DCIT 342 ITR 27. In the above case, this Court held on an identical facts that General Insurance Corporation (supra) is entitled to the benefit of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act. 5 The grievance of the Revenue before us is that: (a) the impugned order of the Tribunal has ignored the decision of its Co-ordinate Bench in respect of Assessment Year 2004-05 which held that diminution or appreciation of any value of assessment will not be taken into account while computing the total income of the Respondent-Assessee; (b) The impugned order ignores the binding decision of the Apex Court in GIC v/s. CIT 240 ITR 139; and (c) An identical question in case of GIC v/s. CIT (ITXA No.201 of 2011) has been admitted on 25th February, 2013. Thus, this question requires admission. 6 Mr. Suresh Kumar draws our attention to the order dated 29th July, 2011 passed by the Tribunal in respect of the same Respondent for the Assessment Year 2004-05. The above decision arose from a Revision under Section 263 of the Act of an Assessment Order. The aforesaid decision arose....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lating to long term capital, would also be available to a person carrying on nonlife Insurance business. Mr. Suresh Kumar very fairly states that the CBDT communication dated 21st February, 2006 addressed by the CBDT to the Chairman, IRTA, as well as the decision of this Court in GIC (supra) would be binding upon the Revenue. 10. In view of the above, the question as framed does not give rise to any substantial question of law." 6. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject the grounds raised by the Revenue. 7. Coming to the Ground No.3 of the grounds of appeal the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that this issue also decided by the Tribunal in assessee's own case in the earlier Assessment Years right from A.Y. 2000-01 to 2010-11 wherein it has been held that the provisions of section 14A r.w. Rule 8D have no application to the assessee an insurance company. Referring to the order passed by the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2010-11 in ITA.No. 5013/Mum/2015 dated 28.03.2018, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that identical issue came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue following the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsurance Act 1938. Section 14A contemplates exception for deduction allowable under the act, whereas section 44 creates special application of provision of computation of profit as per the Insurance Act. Thus, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made and accordingly, ground no. 3 is allowed in favour of the assessee." 19. We, therefore, following the above decision of the Tribunal, dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 10. Respectfully following the said decision, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and reject Ground No.3 of the Revenue's appeal. 11. Ground Nos. 4 & 5 are in respect of amortization of premium. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that identical issue has been decided by the Tribunal in all the earlier years and the latest is A.Y.2010-11. Referring to the order of the Tribunal at Para Nos. 20 to 24, it is submitted that issue is decided in favour of the assessee. 12. Ld. DR fairly accepts this position. However, he supports the order of the Assessing Officer. 13. Heard both sides and perused the orders of the Authorities below. On a perusal of the order of the Tribunal we observe that the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n claim cannot be considered as 'an expenditure or allowance within the meaning of rule 5(a) of the First Schedule. As held by the Supreme Court in the case 01 Indian Molasses Co. (Private) Ltd. vs CIT, West Bengal (1959)37 ITR 66:(SC), spending in the sense paying out or away of money is the primary meaning of expenditure. Expenditure is what is paid our or away and is something which is gone irretrievably Expenditure, which is deductible for income tax, is one which is towards a liability actually existing at the time, but the putting aside of money which may become expenditure on the happening of an event is not expenditure. If this meaning is to be given to the word 'expenditure" occurring in rule 5(a) the amortization claim cannot be considered as expenditure and, therefore, cannot be added back to the balance of the profits. In General Insurance corporation of India vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC) the Supreme Court held that even if an item of debit is considered as an expenditure, it should further be such an expenditure contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and, therefore, unless there was a specific prohibition for such an allowance, the departmental authorities would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Ground No. 6 of grounds of appeal is, whether the provisions of section 115JB have application to the assessee an insurance company and we observe that the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 observing as under: - "29. The issue raised in ground No.6 by the Revenue is against the decision of Ld. CIT(A) upholding that the provision of section 115JB of the Act are not applicable to the assessee. 30. The Ld. A.R., at the outset, submitted that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the own case of the assessee for A.Y. 2004-05 to 2007-08 and therefore following the said decision the issue raised by the Revenue should be dismissed. 31. The Ld. D.R. fairly agreed to the argument of the Ld. A.R. 32. We have perused the material on record and the decisions of the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal for the earlier years i.e. from A.Y. 2004-05 to 2007-08. On sample basis, we would like to quote the operative part from ITA No.3562/M/2007 and others for A.Y. 2004-05 and others which is as under: "18. Besides this, the assessee has raised additio....