Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCHES, ‘I’ MUMBAI
Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal
आदेश / O R D E R
Per Joginder Singh(Judicial Member) Both these appeals are by the Revenue for Assessment year 2005-06 & 2009-10, aggrieved by the impugned orders both dated 14/08/2014 of the ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai.
2. In the appeal for Assessment year 2005-06 ( TDS on the payments of Rs.16,85,47,839/-, made by the assessee to M/s Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore, which was disallowed by Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act).
2.1. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Ms. Arati Visanji, at the outset, claimed that the impugned issue is covered in favour of the assessee by holding that the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act were quashed by the Tribunal, therefore, the Department appeal will not survive. This claim of the assessee was not controverted by ld. DR, Shri V.C.S. Naik.
2.2. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is in the business of general insurance, declared total income of Rs.14,70,36,890/- in its & 6837/Mum/2014 3 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. return filed on 18/10/2005. The regular assessment u/s 143(3), determining total income at Rs.46,29,51,572/- was completed on 12/12/2008. The Ld. Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act dated 29/03/2011 directing the Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessment and examined the claim of the assessee with respect to payments made to M/s Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore, amounting to Rs.16,85,47,839/-, for providing reinsurance business without deducting tax at source u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The Assessing Officer upheld the additions u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act but the same were deleted by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) relying upon ITAT decision in assessee’s own case for Assessment year 2004-05 in 152 ITD 855 (Mum.). In the meantime, the assessee challenged the invoking of revisional power by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.5777/Mum/2011, wherein, the Tribunal quashed the proceedings u/s 263 of the Act by making following observations:-
“1. This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the Ld. CIT-10, Mumbai dt.29.3.2011 pertaining to A.Y.2005-06.
2. The grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT erred in passing an order u/s. 263 on the ground that the order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee is further aggrieved by the direction of the CIT to the AO to reframe the assessment to disallow the expenditure for payment of reinsurance premium to associated enterprises u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act.
3. The assessee is engaged in general insurance business. The assessee offers insurance in the form of fire, engineering, health, motor, travel, marine and liability insurance policies. The return of & 6837/Mum/2014 4 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
income for the year was filed on 18.10.2005 declaring total income at Rs. 14.70 crores. The book profit was computed u/s. 115JB of the Act at Rs. 44.03. Crores. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The assessed income was computed at Rs. 46.29 crores. Since the tax payable on the total income computed under the normal provision of the Act was greater than the tax payable on the book profit u/s. 115JB, the total income computed under the normal provision was taken as the total income of the assessee. 3.1. Invoking the powers conferred upon him vide Sec. 263 of the Act, the CIT was of the firm belief that the assessee has made payment of Rs. 16,85,47,839/- without deducting tax at source to its associated enterprises M/s. Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore for providing reinsurance business. According to the CIT, this payment was not considered and examined by the AO for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act. 3.2. The assessee was asked to explain why the order u/s. 143(3) dt. 12.12.2008 should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The assessee filed a detailed reply questioning the CIT for invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of the Act. It was explained that no tax was deducted at source on the payment of Rs. 16.85 crores to its associated enterprises as no income accrued or arisen or is deemed to accrue or arise in India and provisions of Sec. 9 of the Act are not applicable. It was further explained that the said payment was exempt under Article 7 of the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. It was further explained that the payment to associated enterprise was made in accordance with the CBDT Circular No. 759 dt. 18.11.1997 and CBDT Circular No. 10 dt. 9.10.2002. It was brought to the notice of the CIT that the assessee has obtained a declaration from M/s. Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore that it is a non resident engaged in the business of reinsurance outside India and it does not have an office or permanent establishment or a fixed base in India. For this, the assessee drew support from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Toshuka Ltd. 126 ITR 525 wherein it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that if no operations are carried out in taxable territories, it follows that income accruing or arising abroad through or form any business connection in India cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 3.3. The submissions made by the assessee did not find any favour with the CIT. Relying upon certain judicial decisions, the CIT came to the conclusion that the order dt. 12.12.2008 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The CIT proceeded by cancelling the said order with a direction to the AO to frame a fresh assessment.
4. Aggrieved by this the assessee is before us.
5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the notice issued by the AO u/s. 142(1) of the Act dt. 18th August, 2008. It is the say of the Ld. Counsel that during the course of the scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO had made specific & 6837/Mum/2014 5 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
enquiries in relation to payments/expenses on which tax was deductible at source, details of amount remitted/sent abroad and detailed enquiries were made in connection with the transactions reported in the Form 3CEB. The Ld. Counsel continued by saying that necessary enquiries were made by the AO against which the assessee filed detailed reply which has been considered by the AO before framing the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, the order passed by the CIT u/s. 263 is against the facts of the case.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the CIT.
We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the assessment order and the order of the learned Commissioner. The first thing which has to be considered is whether the Learned Commissioner has rightly assumed the power under section 263 of the Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 has laid down the following ratio:- “A bare reading of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that the prerequisite for the exercise of jurisdiction by the Commissioner suo motu under it, is that the order of the Income- tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. The Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) the order of the Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. If one of them is absent—if the order of the Income- tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to the Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to the Revenue— recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of the Act. The provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer; it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted. An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous”
Now, let us see in the light of the above ratio whether the assessment has been made on an incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law. The first observation of the CIT that the assessee had made payment of Rs. 16.85 crores to its associated enterprises M/s. Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore without deducting tax at source is hit by the provisions of Sec. 40(a)(i) of the Act. On identical issue in the immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2004-05, the matter travelled upto the Tribunal and the Tribunal decided the issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee vide dt. 30.8.2013. At para 2.3 of its order the Tribunal inter alia held as under: “The assessee in this case had obtained reinsurance covered from Singapore Company which was engaged in the business of reinsurance outside India. The payment made by the assessee to the Singapore Company was not for obtaining any technical/managerial services or for use of any property or asset. Therefore the payment could not be considered as royalty or FTS.
& 6837/Mum/2014 6 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
The payment could only be considered as business income in the hands of the Singapore Company which could be taxed in India only if the said company had PE in India. The claim of the assessee that the Singapore Company did not have any establishment or employee in India has not been controverted before us. Therefore, in our view the payment to the Singapore Company was not taxable in India.” The Tribunal finally concluded by confirming the order of the CIT(A) directing the AO to delete the addition.
Considering the decision of the Co ordinate Bench on identical issue, it can be safely concluded that the assessment order has not been made on an incorrect application of law. On facts, a perusal of the questionnaire issued along with the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dt. 18th August, 2008 shows that vide Question No. 29 the AO had sought details of all payments/expenses on which tax was deductible at source as per the provisions of the Act. Question No. 35 was with respect to details of amount remitted/sent abroad supported by RBI prescribed certificate issued by C.A u/s. 195 of the Act, 1961 and Question No. 37 was in connection with the transactions reported in the Form 3CEB. The assessee had filed a detailed reply in respect of these queries raised during the assessment proceedings. Thus the observation of the CIT that the payment of Rs. 16.85 crores to its associated enterprise has not been considered and examined by the AO for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of the Act is incorrect in the light of the facts stated hereinabove. 10.1. The AO has taken a view which may be different from the view of the Ld. Commissioner and assuming that the view taken by the AO is a loss to the Revenue but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that “ every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue,” for e.g. when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Ld. Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an order which is erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of Revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 10.11. The Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 has held that “the decision of the Income Tax Officer could not be held to be erroneous simply because in his order, he did not make an elaborate discussion in that regard”. Considering the facts in totality in the light of the judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, in our understanding of law, the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order passed by the Ld. Commissioner u/s. 263 and restore that of the Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.”
& 6837/Mum/2014 7 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
2.3. Thus, the Tribunal by the aforesaid order held that invocation of revisional jurisdiction was not valid. In view of this uncontroverted factual matrix, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed as in-fructuous.
3. So far as, Assessment year 2009-10 is concerned, the only ground raised
by the Revenue pertains to exemption claimed u/s 10(15), 10(34) and 10(38) of the Act. The ld. counsel for the assessee claimed that this issue is already covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Tribunal for Assessment year 2008
09. (ITA No.3698/Mum/2013) in assessee’s own case. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the ld. DR. 3.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. In view of the above, we are reproducing hereunder the relevant portion from the aforesaid order dated 31/08/2016 (ITA No.3698/Mum/2013) for ready reference and analysis:-
“2. The captioned assessee is engaged in the business of General Insurance and for assessment year under consideration, it filed a return of income declaring an income of Rs.111,10,82,730/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income at Rs.224,99,28,526/- under the normal provisions of the Act. This income was deduced after disallowing the exemptions & 6837/Mum/2014 8 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. claimed by the assessee u/s 10(38), 10(15) and 10(34) of the Act on account of profit on sale of investments – Rs.54,18,03,880/-; interest – Rs.14,11,04,910/-; and, dividend – Rs.5,87,77,006/- respectively. Additionally, the Assessing Officer also disallowed Rs.39,71,60,000/- debited in the Profit & Loss Account on account of Provision for expenses on the ground that such expenses could not be said to have accrued as it was a mere provision. The sum and substance of the stand of Assessing Officer was that the income of assessee from the business of Insurance was required to be determined in terms of Sec. 44 of the Act read with First Schedule of the Act and accordingly, the exemptions under Sec. 10(38) or Sec. 10(15) or Sec. 10(34) of the Act were not applicable. The aforesaid action of the Assessing Officer was carried in appeal before the CIT(A) on various issues. On some issues, CIT(A) has allowed relief against which Revenue is in appeal before us, whereas on issues where the action of Assessing Officer has been upheld, assessee is in appeal before us.
In this background, we may now take up the appeal of Revenue, wherein the Grounds of appeal read as under :-
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)'s erred in
i) allowing the deduction u/s.10(38) for gains/loss on sale of investment aggregating to Rs.54,18,03,880/-; thereby ignoring the fact that the assessee company is engaged in the insurance business and that Computation of its Income from insurance business is to be governed as per special section 44 of the Income Tax Act r.w.Rule 5 contained in the First Schedule. & 6837/Mum/2014 9 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
ii) in not appreciating that the provisions of sec. 10(15), 10(34) and 10(38) were not applicable in the case of assessee company.
i) Deleting the disallowance of AO made on account of interest Rs. 14,11,04,910/ - claimed by assessee company as exempt u/s. 10(15) and dividend Rs.5,87,77,006/- exempt u/s. 10(34/35) of the Act ignoring the fact that the assessee company is engaged in the insurance business and that Computation of its Income from insurance business is to be governed as per special section 44 of the Income Tax Act r.w.Rule 5 contained in the First Schedule. ii) in not appreciating that the provisions of sec. 10(15), 10(34) and 10(38) were not applicable in the case of assessee company.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The issue raised by the Revenue in Ground of appeal
no. 1 arises from the action of CIT(A) in holding that assessee was eligible for claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act with respect to gain/loss on sale of investments aggregating to Rs.54,18,03,880/-. On this aspect, it was a common point between the parties that such issue had come up before the Tribunal in earlier assessment years also and the claim of the assessee has been upheld. In this context, it is noticed that CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Tribunal for Assessment Year 2003-04 vide order dated 10.10.2012 in ITA No. 2398/Mum/2009. The relevant discussion in the order of Tribunal dated 10.10.2012 (supra) reads as under :- & 6837/Mum/2014
10. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
“5. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. There is a special provision for computation of income chargeable under the head “profits and gain” inter-alia in the business of Insurance under section 44 of the I T Act and the same shall be computed in accordance with the Rule containing in first schedule of the Act. The profits and gains of business of insurance other than the life insurance shall be computed as per Rule 5 of First Schedule as under:
The profits and gains of any business of insurance other than life insurance shall be taken to be the profit before tax and appropriations as disclosed in the profit and loss account prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) or the rules made thereunder or the provisions of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (4 of 1999) or the regulations made thereunder, subject to the following adjustments; a. Subject to the other provisions of this rule, any expenditure or allowance including any amount debited to the profit and loss account either by way of a provision for any tax, dividend, reserve or any other provision as may be prescribed which is not admissible under the provisions of sections 30 to 43B in computing the profits and gains of a business shall be added back; b. (i) any gain or loss on realisation of investments shall be added or deducted, as the case may be, if such gain or loss is not credited or debited to the profit and loss account; (ii) any provision for diminution in the value of investment debited to the profit and loss account, shall be added back; c. such amount carried over to a reserve for unexpired risks as may be prescribed in this behalf shall be allowed as a deduction.”
5.1 The bare reading of the amended provisions of Rule 5 of First Schedule makes it clear that the profits and gains shall be taken to be the profit before the tax and appropriately disclosed in the P&L Account prepared in accordance with the Insurance Act, 1938 or the Rule made there under or the provisions of IRDA Act. There is no dispute that the assessee before us has included the profit on sale of investments in the profit and gain as declared in the accounts prepared in accordance with the provisions of Insurance Act 1938. It is also not the case of the assessee that the profits/gains on sale of investments is not required to be included in the P&L Account & 6837/Mum/2014 11 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. prepared in accordance with the provisions of Insurance Act. Therefore, once the profit on sale of investment is required to be included in the P& L account in accordance with the provisions of Insurance Act, then as per the Rule 5 of First Schedule of the I T Act, no adjustment is required to be made on account of the amount of profits on sale of investment already included in the P&L Account. Thus, we find force and substance in the contention of the ld DR that once the assessee has included the gain on sale of investments in the P&L account prepared as per the provisions of the Insurance Act, 1938, then the said amount cannot be reduced while computing the income as per provisions of sec. 44 r.w First Schedule of the I T Act.
5.2 However, in the series of decisions of the Tribunal a view has been taken that the amendment vide Finance Act 1988 w.e.f 1.4.89, the sub rule (b) of Rule 5 of First Schedule was omitted with the purpose to grand exemption to the insurance companies with regard to the profit on sale of investments. The Tribunal has taken note of the fact that in the corollary, it has been provided in the circular no.528 dated 16.12.1988 that the loss incurred by the general insurance companies on realization of investment shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the profit chargeable to tax.
5.3 In the latest decision dated 22.10.2010, this Tribunal in the case of Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT in after considering the earlier decisions of the Tribunal has held in paras 18 to 20 as under:
“18. We have carefully considered the rival contentions. There is no dispute that under the guidelines issued by the IRDA (Auditors Report) Regulations of 2002, for preparation of financial statements, the profit on sale of investments is to be credited to the Profit and Loss Account of the insurance company. There is also no dispute that the assessee has credited the Profit and Loss Account with such profit the question is whether such profit can be excluded and exemption can be claimed. Rule 5(b), as it stood before being omitted from 01.04.1989, was as follows: - ‘any amount either written off or reserved in the accounts to meet depredation of or loss on the realization of investments shall be allowed as a deduction, and any sums taken credit for & 6837/Mum/2014 12 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. in the accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on the realization of investments shall be treated as part of the profits and gains; Provided that the Assessing Officer is satisfied about the reasonableness of the amount written off or reserved in the accounts, as the case may be, to meet depredation of or loss on the realization of investment.
The argument on behalf of the assessee primarily is that when the rules for preparation of the final accounts provide that the profit on sale of investments, should be shown in the credit side of the Profit and Loss Account, then there was no question of rule 5(b) being applicable and that was the reason why the said rule was omitted with effect from 01.04.1989 and the effect of the omission is that where the Profit and Loss Account already includes the profit on sale of investments, the same shall stand excluded. The effect of the omission of the rule was considered by the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in its order dated 31 August 2009, in the case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, in ITA No: 1447/PN/2007 and CO No:521PN12007 (assessment year 2003-04). A copy of the said order has been filed before us. The Tribunal has also considered the Circular No.528 dated 16.12.1988. After analyzing the impact of the omission of rule 5(b) and the Circular, the Tribunal held as under. – ‘8. A conclusion can be drawn on the basis of the above elaborate discussion that the deletion of sub rule (b) from Rule 5 of the First Schedule was with a specific purpose. This Schedule not only prescribes the method of computation of income of Insurance Business in part (A) but also prescribe the method of computation of other Insurance Business in Part (B). Rule 5 is within Part (B) and earlier it has prescribed the method of taxation of profit on sale of investments which was later on scraped. Even by applying a reverse logic we must arrive at the same conclusion that had the impugned income’ was earlier taxable under one specific clause but even on its deletion no clause was Introduced or replaced to prescribe the method of taxation of such income;. Therefore the Revenue Department has no right to tax such an income in the absence of any enabling provision. Naturally, such a deletion cannot be treated a superfluous action but this change had to give a definite judicial meaning. We have to ascribe a logical conclusion to the & 6837/Mum/2014 13 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. said deletion of sub rule (b) from Rule 5 and the natural meaning is that after the deletion the income described therein is out of the purview of computation of Insurance Business from the First schedule therefore consequently cannot be taxed u/s 44 of I T Act. After expressing this view we hereby dismiss the cross objection of the revenue”’.
19: The aforesaid order of the Pune Bench, which was in the case of a company carrying on general insurance business, was followed by the Mumbai Bench Of the Tribunal in its order dated 17.09.2010, in the case :of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., in ITA No: 338/Mum/2009 (assessment year 2004- 05) as also in its Order dated 30.04.2010, in the case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., in :ITA No. 781/Mum/2007 (and other appeals).Copies of these orders have also been filed before us. In these orders it has been held that the profit on sale of investment in the case of an assessee carrying on general insurance business cannot be brought to tax after the omission of rule 5(b) and as per the Circular cited above. Since the controversy before us is identical, respectfully following the orders of the Pune and Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal cited above, we direct the Assessing Officer to exclude the profit of Z47,45,699/- on the sale of investments from the assessment • V
The learned CIT DR, however, argued that the effect of the omission of rule 5(b) is just the opposite of what the assessee has contended. According to him, after 01.04.1989 the exemption was taken away. He submitted further that the profit on sale of the investment has already been included in the Profit and Loss Account and there is no authority to take it out even under rule 5(b) as it existed before 01.04.1989. According to him, there was no scope for applying the rules of interpretation when the statutory provisions are clear. Since the matter is concluded by the orders of the Tribunal cited supra, where all these aspects have been considered, we are unable to take a different view of the matter. Thus Ground No.4 is allowed.”
5.4 Since the Tribunal has been taking a consistent view on this issue in a series of decisions as relied upon by the ld AR of the assessee; therefore, to maintain the rule of consistency and uniformity on this aspect, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.” & 6837/Mum/2014 14 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
5. It is pointed out that in Assessment Year 2004-05 also the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.09.2013 in followed its earlier decision dated 10.10.2012 (supra) and allowed the claim of the assessee. Similarly, in Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Tribunal has upheld its earlier decisions vide order dated 05.06.2014 in ITA Nos. 1714 & 1715/Mum/2011. It has also been pointed out that in Assessment Year 2007-08 also, the Tribunal vide its order dated 12.02.2015 in ITA Nos. 7844 & 7619/Mum/2011 has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Apart therefrom, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that the view of the Tribunal is also in consonance with the clarification issued by CBDT vide Circular dated 21.02.2006, which has indeed been referred by the CIT(A) in the impugned order.
6. For all the above reasons, and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice, the action of CIT(A) is hereby affirmed. Thus, Revenue fails in Ground of appeal no. 1.
7. Insofar as Ground of appeal
no. 2 is concerned, same relates to the decision of CIT(A) in holding that assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 10(15) and 10(34/35) of the Act of Rs.14,11,04,910/- and Rs.5,87,77,006/- respectively. On this aspect, it is seen that the CIT(A) allowed the plea of assessee by referring to the clarification issued by CBDT dated 21.02.2006 whereby it is clarified that exemption available to any & 6837/Mum/2014
15. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. other assessee under any of the clauses of Sec. 10 of the Act shall also be made available to a person carrying on non-life insurance business. Apart therefrom, at the time of hearing the learned representative for the assessee has referred to the decision of Tribunal in the case of assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 (supra), wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of the assessee following precedents in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra). The relevant discussion in the order of Tribunal dated 12.02.2015 reads as under :-
3. The issues raised vide Ground No. 2 have been considered by the Tribunal in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Company Ltd. in 6855, 6856 & 6859/Mum/2010. The Tribunal has considered the issue at page 59 of its order and at page 60 the Tribunal has considered the decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT (Bom) and at page 62 the Tribunal has considered the decision in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. and finally at para 49 of this order the Tribunal concluded that the assessee is entitled to get exemption under section 10 of Act, 1961. A similar issue was considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Writ Petition No. 2560 of 2011 dated 1/12/2011, wherein Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside the notice issued for reopening of the assessment when the Revenue sought to reopen the completed assessment for disallowing the claim of deduction allowed under section 10 of the Act. In the original assessment order. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial decision we confirm the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss ground No. 2 of the appeal.
Following the aforesaid precedent, and the basis on which CIT(A) has allowed the relief, we find no reason to interfere with his ultimate decision, which is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground of appeal no. 2 raised by the Revenue is also dismissed.” & 6837/Mum/2014
16. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd.
3.2. In the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has deliberated upon the issue in hand and found that for earlier Assessment years, the Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and in the absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either side and more specifically the Revenue, we affirm the stand of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue is having no merit, therefore, dismissed.
Finally, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
This order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of the ld. representative from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 04/10/2016.