TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 1458
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was correct in concluding that transfer from Share Holders Account to Policy Holder's Account and shown as part of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation' was only transfer asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.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 income from Insurance Business?" 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccount to policy holders' account shown as part of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the Act read with Rule 2 of the First Schedule, and thereby made the addition of Rs. 22,71,65,400/-. AO also made addition of Rs. 4,59,41,957/- on account of loss from Pension Fund by ignoring the settled law that income includes loss and that income from Pension Fund does not form part of the total income of the assessee corporation under section 10(23AAB) of the Act. Accordingly, Assessing Officer framed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act. 3. Assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by filing the present appeal who has partly allowed the same. Feeling aggrieved with th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cer in assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. However, the additions made by the Assessing Officer were deleted by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). While deciding the appeal preferred by the Revenue on the issue in assessment year 2011-12 in ITA No. 4373/Mum./2013, dated 30th March 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 T....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... view that when undisputedly, the assessee is carrying on life insurance business, its income is to be determined under section 44 of the Act by taking into account total surplus as arrived at by actuarial valuation and further income from share holder account was also to be taxed as part of the life insurance business. So finding no illegality or perversity in the impugned findings returned by Ld.CIT(A), grounds 1 & 2 raised by the Revenue are dismissed. Grounds 3 4: 10. In order to challenge the impugned deletion of addition made by the assessee under section 10(23AAB) of the Act, Ld.DR for the Revenue again relied upon the order passed by Assessing Officer. 11. Ld.AR for the assessee further contended that this issue has also be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 (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 the AO. On second appeal the Tribunal deleted the said addition. The revenue filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal before the High Court. The Hon'ble High Court held that (i) amount set apart by insurance company towards solvency margin as per the direction given by IRDA is to be excluded while computing actuarial valuation surplus, and (ii) pension fund like Jeevan Suraksha Fund would con....