TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 1469
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by the Revenue read as under:- "1. CIT(A) erred in holding the surplus from Shareholder's funds as income from life insurance business U/s 44 of the IT Act, despite the fact that the nature of this income is completely different from the premium income under policy holder fund, which is the only income from the life insurance business to he determined U/s 44 of the IT Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court has already admitted the SLP of Department on this issue in the case of CIT Vs ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (2016) 242 Taxman 97 (SC). 2. CIT(A) erred in holding that the profits of the Life Insurance business would be determined as per the financial accounts and not as per the surplus reflected in Form I of 'Acturial Valuation' as ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (ITA No. 1508/Bang/2017) (Bangalore ITAT 4. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. CIT (ITA No. 756/Bang/2017) (Bangalore ITAT 5. ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. LT6d. Vs. ACIT (29 Taxmann.com 257 (Mumbai ITAT) which was subsequently upheld by Bombay High Court in (73 Taxmann.com 2011) 5. The ld CIT(A) was convinced with the contention of the assessee and accordingly, by following the above said decisions, held as under:- "Having considered the submissions, it is observed that the issue under consideration is squarely covered by the above judicial pronouncements including that, of the jurisdictional ITAT in the case of the Appellant for the Asst, Year 200010 in ITA No,792/Bang/2016) I Bangalore ITATI and also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee by following the decision rendered by Bombay High Court in the case of LIC of India Ltd., (2011) 12 Taxmann.com 388 (Bom). For the sake of convenience, we extract below the relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal in IT(TP)A No.335, 338/Bang/2014 and IT(TP)A No.243/Bang/2015 47. The next grievance projected by the assessee in ground No.II comprising of ground 1 to 6 is with regard to action of the Revenue authorities in not allowing loss incurred from pension fund which is exempt u/s 10(23AAB) of the Act amounting to Rs. 87, 85,43,000/- while determining the actuarial valuation surplus u/s 44 of the Act. We have already seen that in asst. year 2009-10 this claim was allowed by the CIT(A). As far as present asst. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in our respectful view the following decision of the Apex Court which has laid down the law on losses arising from an exempt source is more appropriate. 7.3. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Harprasad 99 ITR 118 has held that when any income is exempt at source, the loss would not consequently enter into computation of income. The relevant portion is as follows- "It may be remembered that the concept of carry forward of loss does not stand in vacuo. It involves the notion of set-off Its sole purpose is to set off the loss against the profits of a subsequent year. It pre-supposes the permissibility and possibility of the carriedforward loss being absorbed or set off against the profits and gains, if any, of the subsequent yea....