2025 (9) TMI 644

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of dispute in this appeal is whether the appellant is entitled for claim of long term capital loss on the amount received as (premature withdrawal) of ULIP. During this year, the appellant received an amount of Rs. 15,52,159/- from LIC towards ULIP premium amount paid in earlier years. The appellant claims that he had been paying Rs. 1.8 lakhs per annum for a period of 8 years. The amount receive....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he contention that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of indexation and long term capital loss was rejected by Ld. CIT(A). 2. During the hearing before the ITAT, Ld. AR of the appellant has argued that since the ULIP is "capital asset", and hence he is entitled for indexation benefit. The indexed cost of acquisition amount received being less than the premature surrendered amount of ULIP, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d hence not applicable. 4. Heard both sides. There is no dispute that treating ULIP as a "capital asset" under section 2(14)(c) of the Act is only from A.Y. 2021-22 as the amendment has come by way of Finance Act 2021 and there is no retrospective effect. So, the treatment of appellant of ULIP as "capital asset" for A.Y. 2016-17, the impugned A.Y. is incorrect. Unless, the ULIP is treated as "cap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ame to the conclusion that it is a case of "capital asset" because amount payable per annum is more than Rs. 2.5 lakh in terms of section 10(10D) of I.T. Act, whereas in our case, the appellant admitted was paying Rs. 1.8 lakhs p.a. only. In other words, in that case, the appellant paid a premium of Rs. 50 lakh more than the limit specified under the fourth proviso to section 10(10b) of the I.T. A....