TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., which is an eligible amount for deducting TDS as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the Act. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the amount of Rs. 13,14,782/- towards purchase of pen drives, laptop adapters, cables, batteries, hard disks, etc., which are capital in nature. iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in allowing the bonus offered to tax in earlier year and paid during the year amounting to Rs. 1,50,81,991/- as per the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing write back of excess provision for expenses disallowed in earlier year amounting to Rs. 5,78,07,194/- as per the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing expenses disallowed in earlier year amounting to Rs. 35,28,707/ as per the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act. vi. Whether on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e administration fees. The Ld. AO treated the said payment as commission or brokerage liable for deduction of tax at source under section 194H of the Act and, for alleged non-compliance with section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, disallowed the entire amount of Rs. 79,22,532/-. During the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) examined the issue and observed that the disallowance of co-insurance administration fees by the Ld. AO is a recurring issue in the assessee's own case. The co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT, Mumbai, had adjudicated the identical issue for A.Ys. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 and A.Y. 2013-14 in ITA Nos. 3535 & 1702/Mum/2011 and ITA No. 4167/Mum/2012, vide order dated 20.11.2015, wherein the issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the addition was deleted. Respectfully following the said decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the assessee's own case, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the entire addition. 6. The Ld. DR argued & relied upon the order of the Ld. AO but was unable to bring on record any contrary judicial precedent to rebut the findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was paid during the year under consideration. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee was engaged in the business of general insurance and that its income was assessable under section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule to the Act. Accordingly, the taxable income was required to be computed on the basis of the profits disclosed in the Profit and Loss Account prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Insurance Act, after excluding amounts disallowable under sections 30 to 43B of the Act. The Ld. AO further noted that, while computing the total income, the assessee had added back certain items, including excess provision for expenses made during the current year, excess provision for employee bonus made during the current year, provision for bad and doubtful debts, loss on sale of fixed assets, prior period expenses debited to the Profit and Loss Account, and other similar items. Simultaneously, the assessee had reduced certain amounts such as reversal of performance bonus offered to tax in earlier years, reversal of provision for expenses offered to tax in the preceding year, expenses on which tax was not deducted at source i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid decision, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the impugned addition. 15. The Ld. DR relied upon and supported the impugned assessment order. 16. However, in view of the binding decision of the co-ordinate Bench on identical facts, we find no infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue is upheld, and Ground No. (iv) raised by the revenue is dismissed. Ground v. 17. The disallowance was made amount to Rs. 35,28,707/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act, for which the disallowance was made in earlier years and TDS was deducted in current year. The issue pertains to the disallowance of write back of excess provision for expenses disallowed in earlier years. The Ld.AR stated that the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) has been made in earlier year and TDS is deducted in current year, is a recurring issue and the said issue decided by the co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No.1718/Mum/2020 for A.Y. 2015-16 date of pronouncement 25.04.2022. The Ld.CIT(A) followed this order of the co-ordinate bench while deleting the addition. 18. The Ld. DR argued & relied upon the order of the Ld. AO but was unable to bring on re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t context, the Supreme Court held as follows: "There is another approach to the same issue. Section 44 of the Income-tax Act read with the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Act lays down an artificial mode of computing the profits and gains of insurance business. For the purpose of income-tax, the figures in the accounts of the assessee drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act and satisfying the requirements of the Insurance Act are binding on the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act and he has no general power to correct the, errors in the accounts of an insurance business and undo the entries made therein." The question whether an assessee who carries on general insurance business would be entitled to avail of an exemption under Section 10 did not arise. The issue as to whether the assessee which carries on the business of general insurance would be entitled to the benefit of an exemption under clauses (15), (23G) and (33) of Section 10 is directly governed by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation v. Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) following the earlier decision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ound (vii). 24. The issue in this ground relate to Ld.AO disallowing the exempt income u/s 10(34) of the Act and also, that related to this exempt income, the expenses related to this exempt income should be disallowed u/s 14A of the Act. We find that the fact remains that the disallowance u/s 14A is recurring issue in assessee's case. The co-ordinate bench of ITAT, Mumbai has, in assessee's own case for A.Ys 2006-07 to 2008-09, held that provisions of section 14A are not applicable to the case of the assessee. the co-ordinate bench of the ITAT-Mumbai has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, in assessee's own case for A.Ys 2006-07 to 2008-09 in ITA Nos. 3535 & 1702/Mum/2011 and ITA No. 4167/Mum/2012, vide order dated 20.11.2015. The coordinate bench has decided the issue in favour of the assessee & the relevant paragraph is reproduced as below:- "17. Similar view was also taken by the coordinate bench in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 2010-TIOL-ITAT-MUM. 18. Respectfully following the above judicial pronouncements, we do not find any merit in the action of lower authorities for disallowance made u/s. 14A, which is not applicabl....