TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1754
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred in deleting the addition made on account of exemption of income from pension fund of Rs. 4,35,76,280/- u/s 10(23AA(3) of the Act without considering the fact the loss from such income should not be allowed to be adjusted against the profit of the scheme which are taxable as per section 44 of the Income Tax Act,1961." 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of deduction claimed on Dividend Income u/s10(34) of the Act of Rs. 13,82,68,575/- without considering the fact that such dividend income was assessable under the head income from business and profession and cannot be computed separately to claim exemption u/s 10(34) of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid amount was also added to the income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed at loss in sum of Rs.(-)39,58,40,522/-. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE No. 1 4. Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of addition raised on account of exemption of income from pension scheme u/s 10(23AAB) of the Act in sum of Rs. 4,35,76,280/-. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the income from the pension fund is not liable to the exempt u/s 44 of the I.T. Act, 1961 but the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition, hence, the finding of the CIT(A) is not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. (2011) 12 taxmann.com 388 (Born) wherein it is held as under: "Section 44 of the Income-tax Act. 1961 - Insurance businessAssessment year 2002-03 - Whether amount set apart by insurance company towards solvency margin as per directions given by IRDA is to be excluded while computing actuarial valuation surplus - Held yes - Whether pension fund like Jeevan Suraksha Fund would continue to be governed by provisions of section 44 irrespective of fact that income from such fund is exempted, or not and, therefore, every after insertion of section 10(23AA8), loss incurred from pension fund like Jeevan Suraksha Fund has to be excluded while determining actuarial va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../2014 vide order dated 11.01.2017. The said decision was passed on the basis of decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of LIC of India Ltd. (338 ITR 212). Accordingly, the claim of the loss of the Pension Fund was held to be allowable claim. The section 44 of the Act has clearly been distinguished on account of loss in the pension scheme. The facts are not distinguishable at the stage. No law contrary to the law relied by the assessee has been produced before us. Since the case of the assessee has duly been covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee's own case (supra), therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the CIT(A) is quite justifiable which is not liable to be disturbed at this stage. Accordingly, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re he has allowed assessee's claim of exemption under section 120 (23AA8) of surplus of participation Pension Business and also dividend under section 10(34). Accordingly, revenue ground on this issue is rejected." (ii) LIC (115 ITR 45) "The only effect of section 44 is that the operation of the provisions referred to therein is excluded in the case of an assessee who carries on insurance business and in whose case the provisions of rule 2 of the First Schedule are attracted. If the deductions which are claimed by the assessee do not fall within the provisions in the case of an assesses whose assessment is governed by section 44 read with rule 2 in the First Schedule is not excluded." LIC vs. Addl. C/T1TA Nos.3702, 3703,6221/Mum/2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....014 vide order dated 11.01.2017 by observing and holding as under: "7. Regarding the 2nd issue, which relates to the disallowance of dividend income u/s 10(34) qua the provisions of section 44 of the Act, we find that the finding of the CIT(A) in para 5.3 of his order is fair and reasonable as the same is taken based on the various binding judicial precedents in the case of LIC vs Addl. CIT. : ICIC Prudential Insurance vs ACIT; SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd vs C1T etc, (contents on page 8 of the CIT (A) order are relevant . Accordingly, we affirm the order of the CIT (A) on this issue too. Thus, both the issues raised by the revenue are allowed in favour of assessee." Facts and issue being the same as that of the earlier year, respectf....