“keyman insurance”

Drupad Menda, Mumbai vs. PCIT, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran (Am) & Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm)

discussed in brief. The assessee is a director in a company named “M/s JMD Auto India P Ltd”. The said company had taken a Keyman Insurance Policy in the name of the assessee. During the year under consideration, the said policy was surrendered and a sum of Rs.46 ... PCIT, he was not satisfied with them. Accordingly he held as under:- “5…..However, in the event of Director being the assignee under the Keyman Insurance Policy, the AO has failed to verify the deduction claimed by the assessee under section 57 of the Act. Since proper enquiry/examination

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Creation Publicity Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.5302, 5303 & 5304/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S. Creation Publicity Income Tax Officer- Limited., Ward-2(1)(2), बिधम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chamber, 66, Room No.543, 5Th Floor, Vs. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcc2192B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Hemant Vora(Ca) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 20.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-4, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) /147 For The Ay 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2

ground raised in all the 3 appeals are that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of Keyman Insurance Premium paid without examining whether the directors were Keyman for the company. 3. The facts in brief qua the ground raised in the appeal ... allowable expenses as insurance paid was not purely life insurance policies. The relevant observations of the AO are as under:- 6. Keyman Insurance Premium of Rs.6,79,007/-: 6.1 It is seen from the Profit & Loss Account that the assessee has debited Rs.6,79,007/- being Keyman Insurance Premium paid

Income Tax Officer -2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S Creation Publicity Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.5302, 5303 & 5304/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S. Creation Publicity Income Tax Officer- Limited., Ward-2(1)(2), बिधम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chamber, 66, Room No.543, 5Th Floor, Vs. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcc2192B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Hemant Vora(Ca) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 20.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-4, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) /147 For The Ay 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2

ground raised in all the 3 appeals are that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of Keyman Insurance Premium paid without examining whether the directors were Keyman for the company. 3. The facts in brief qua the ground raised in the appeal ... allowable expenses as insurance paid was not purely life insurance policies. The relevant observations of the AO are as under:- 6. Keyman Insurance Premium of Rs.6,79,007/-: 6.1 It is seen from the Profit & Loss Account that the assessee has debited Rs.6,79,007/- being Keyman Insurance Premium paid

Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(2), Mumbai vs. M/S. Creation Publicity Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.5302, 5303 & 5304/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) M/S. Creation Publicity Income Tax Officer- Limited., Ward-2(1)(2), बिधम/ 4, Parekh Vora Chamber, 66, Room No.543, 5Th Floor, Vs. Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai- 400 001 M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020. स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aabcc2192B (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri. Hemant Vora(Ca) प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Praveen Shekhar, Sr.Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 02.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 31.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeals Have Been Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Impugned Order Of Even Date 20.05.2019, Passed By Ld. Cit (A)-4, Mumbai For The Quantum Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) /147 For The Ay 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13. 2

ground raised in all the 3 appeals are that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the claim of Keyman Insurance Premium paid without examining whether the directors were Keyman for the company. 3. The facts in brief qua the ground raised in the appeal ... allowable expenses as insurance paid was not purely life insurance policies. The relevant observations of the AO are as under:- 6. Keyman Insurance Premium of Rs.6,79,007/-: 6.1 It is seen from the Profit & Loss Account that the assessee has debited Rs.6,79,007/- being Keyman Insurance Premium paid

Alf Engineering Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT-Mumbai-4, Mumbai

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

against the provisions of law and the same may be quashed. 4. The Ld. Pr. CIT further failed to appreciate that the impugned keyman insurance policy was taken in the previous year 2012-13 relevant to assessment year 2013-14 and the Ld. A.O. has accepted the contention ... further failed to appreciate that the policy taken by the Appellant is duly approved by the IRDA as being in the nature of keyman insurance policy only. Hence, the expenditure incurred by the Appellant for payment of premium of said policies are eligible for deduction under section