TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1796
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;surplus' available both in Policy Holders Account and Share Holder's account is to be consolidated and only 'net surplus' is to be taxed as income from Insurance Business?" 3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that taking the value of negative reserve at zero has an impact of reducing the taxable surplus as per Form-I and therefore, corresponding adjustment for negative reserve need to be made to arrive at taxable surplus?" 4. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the claim of the assessee that its dividend income is exempt under section 10(34) of the I.T. Act 1961?" 5 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee that its dividend income is exempt under section 10(34) of the I.T. Act 1961 made by the assessee, ignoring the fact that dividend income is considered as an income by the actuary.? 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hence, the same was disallowed and was added to the income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs. 886,88,05,540/-. 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 NOS. 1 & 2:- 4. Issue nos. 1 & 2 are in connection with the allowance of the claim of the assessee by CIT(A) in connection with the income from shareholder's account. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the claim of the assessee has wrongly been allowed whereas the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the claim of the assessee has rightly been allowed being covered by the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT for the different assessment year. Before going further, we deemed it necessary to advert the finding of the CIT(A) on record: - "6.1.1 Vide these grounds, appellant has agitated against AO's action in disallowing the transfer of funds from Shareholder's Account (SHA) to Policyholder's Account and Treatment of Profit in P&L Account (Shareholder's Account) as income from other sources amounting to Rs. 100,87,06,309/-. In par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Co. Ltd. Vs. ACIT Cirlce-6(1), (2012-TIOL-580-ITAT-ITA No.6855/MUM/2010) and HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. DCIT (OSD)-1(1)(ITA. No3004/MUM/2012) & (ITA. No. 3004/MUM/2012 A.Y. 2008-09) in which the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue. Since this issue has been adjudicated in favour of the assessee in which the income arising in shareholder's accounts under the head life insurance business has been treated as income from business. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. No law contrary to the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee has been produced before us. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. ISSUEU NO.3 6. Under this issue the revenue has challenged the deletion of addition of negative reserves. The Ld. Representative of the revenue has argued that the negative reserve contained taxable liability but the CIT(A) has wrongly deleted the addition, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is not justifiable, hence, the same is liable....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... deleted and appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed." 7. On appraisal of the above mentioned finding, we noticed that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy on the basis of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. CIT, Delhi and Rajasthan (51 ITR 0773). The CIT(A) has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai Bench in ITA. No.4066/MUM/2011, 1897/MUM/2012, 5112/MUM/2012 AND 2476/MUM/2014 for the A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. The treatment of incremental negative reserve is quite same as held in the previous year. There is no reason to deviate from the finding of the CIT(A). No law contrary to the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee has been produced before us. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. ISSUE Nos. 4 & 5 8. Under these issues the revenue has challenged the allowance of claim of dividend income u/s 10(34) of the Act. The revenue has challenged the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al is allowed." 9. On appraisal of the above mentioned order, we noticed that the CIT(A) has decided the issues on the basis of decision of Bombay High Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. CIT reported in 115 ITR 45 (Bom). The issue has already covered with the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the assessee‟s own case in ITA. No.4066/MUM/2011, 1897/MUM/2012, 5112/MUM/2012 AND 2476/MUM/2014 for the A.Ys. 2007-08 to 2010-11. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. No law contrary to the law relied by the Ld. Representative of the assessee has been produced before us. Taking into account all the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the matter of controversy judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. ISSUE Nos. 6 & 7 10. Under these issues the revenue has challenged the deletion of addition raised on account of exemption of the claim u/s 10(23AAB) of the Act of Rs. 1,32,59,95,816/- on account of income from pension scheme. The CIT(A) has given the finding which is hereby reproduced as under:- "6.4.4 The same view is approved by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in ca....