DCIT, CIR-6(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOLKATA

The first issue of revenue’s appeal is against the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting the disallowance made by AO of Rs.45,59,000/- by holding that investment written off by assessee was an allowable deduction.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee wrote off Rs.45,59,000/- out of investments by charging the said sum to its P&L Account. The AO held that the above write off could not be allowed as admissible deduction and he disallowed the same. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following the decision of AY 2011-12 of his predecessor. Aggrieved, revenue is in appeal before us.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 05.08.2016 in assessee’s own case, cited supra on identical issue allowed the claim of assessee and dismissed the revenue’s appeal on this aspect. Since the facts are similar and issue is identical and the Ld. DR was unable to bring out anything on record to controvert facts or law, we respectfully following the Tribunal’s order dated 05.08.2016, cited supra, confirm the order of Ld. CIT(A) ordering deletion of the disallowance. Therefore, this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed.

The second ground of appeal of revenue is against the action of Ld. CIT(A) in holding that a sum of Rs.4,82,50,000/- being amortization of premium was an allowable deduction.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee claimed Rs. 4,82,50,000/- towards amortization of premium paid on investments . The AO was of the view that this was an expenditure, which was capital in nature and he disallowed the same. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by following the decision of AY 2011-12 of his predecessor. Aggrieved, the revenue is in appeal before us.

At the time of hearing before us, Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and on the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee in its own case in 982/K/2012 & 983/K/2012 for AYs 2005-06 to 2008-09 vide order dated 05.08.2016.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 05.08.2016 in assessee’s own case, cited supra on identical issue allowed the claim of assessee and dismissed the revenue’s appeal on this aspect. Since the facts are similar and issue is identical and the Ld. DR was unable to bring out anything on record to controvert the facts

At the time of hearing before us, Ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and on the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is now covered in favour of the assessee in its own case in 982/K/2012 & 983/K/2012 for AYs 2005-06 to 2008-09 vide order dated 05.08.2016.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the coordinate bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 05.08.2016 in assessee’s own case, cited supra on identical issue allowed the claim of assessee and dismissed the revenue’s appeal on this aspect. Since the facts are similar and issue is identical and the Ld. DR was unable to bring out anything on record to controvert the facts or law, we respectfully following the Tribunal’s order dated 05.08.2016, cited supra, confirm the action of the Ld. CIT(A) to delete the disallowance. Therefore, this ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of revenue is dismissed.