TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 2129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Revenue are common and identically worded in both the appeals and read as under:- i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was correct in concluding that transfer from share holder account to policy holder's account and shown as part of surplus in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the Act r/w rule 2 of the First Schedule? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) was correct in allowing the relief to the assessee by holding that 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 inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tted the required details as per which the surplus as on 31st March 2009, was Rs. 2, 75, 81, 110, and as on 31st March 2012, was Rs. 11, 39, 67, 000. Since, the assessee had not offered the surpluses in the computation of income, the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain why they should not be added to the total income under section 44 of the Act. Though, the assessee objected to the proposed additions by making elaborate submissions, however, the Assessing Officer rejecting the submissions of the assessee added back the surplus of Rs. 2, 75, 81, 110 and Rs. 11, 39, 67, 000 in the assessment year 2009-10 and 2012-13 respectively. The assessee challenged the aforesaid additions by filing appeals before the first appellate aut....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2017, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with the following observations:- "6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We begin with 1st, 2nd & 3rd ground of appeal as they address a common issue. We find that the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that "where assessee was carrying on life insurance business and Tribunal following a decision of Supreme Court, while determining assessee's income under section 44, had taken into consideration total surplus as arrived at by actuarial valuation and further held that income from shareholders account was also to be taxed as a part of life insurance b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3, 95, 291 under section 10(23AAB) of the Act on account of surplus / deficit pension fund. When the Assessing Officer called upon the assessee to explain why such exemption claimed should not be disallowed, the assessee relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. justified its claim. By observing that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. was challenged by the Department before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition, the Assessing Officer disallowed the exemption claimed by the assessee under section 10(23AAB) of the Act. Being aggrieved of such disallowance, the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usiness. In its return of income for the A. Y. 2002-03, it computed actuarial valuation surplus by excluding the provision for reserve on account of solvency margin amounting to Rs. 3, 500 crores and loss in Jeevan Suraksha Fund. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee and passed the assessment order by adding the amount on account of the provision for solvency margin and loss from Jeevan Suraksha Fund, inter alia, on the ground that the provision for solvency margin was not an ascertained liability and that income from Jeevan Suraksha Fund being exempt u/s 10(23AAB), the loss incurred from the said fund could not be adjusted against the taxable income. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the additions made by....