Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.25 seconds)Tarulata Syam And Ors vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 28 April, 1977
14. Even if such an inference is desirable, as long as it does not
emerge from the plain words of the statute, it cannot be open to
supply the same. The concepts of term policy, pure life policy and the
IRDA guidelines find no mention in the statutory provisions. But even
if these concepts ought to be incorporated in this statutory provision
of the Income Tax Act to make it more meaningful and workable, it
cannot be open to any judicial forum to supply these omissions.
Relying upon Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of
Tarulata Shyam Vs CIT [(1977) 108 ITR 245 (SC)], a coordinate
bench of this Tribunal, in the case of Tata Tea Limited Vs JCIT
[(2003) 87 ITD 351 (Cal)], has explained this principle as follows:
Samaj Seva Nidhi, Vijayawada vs Acit (Inv) Circle Iii, Vijayawada on 7 April, 2015
7. As regards the argument of learned DR that the written note submitted
in the case of M/s Suri Sons as contained in para d and e were not considered,
we find that in para d as noted by the Hon'ble Tribunal the objection of learned
DR was that the decision of Sh. Nidhi Corporation vs. ACIT 151 ITD 470 was
not applicable as in that case the assessee was given the liberty to choose the
investment plan whereas no such option was available to the assessee in the
present case.
C.I.T.,New Delhi vs Rajan Nanda on 24 November, 2014
20. The Assessing Officer has questioned commercial expediency
of taking the keyman insurance policies on the short grounds that (a)
the fall in turnover, apparently according to the Assessing Officer, shows
that there was no commercial benefit from taking the keyman insurance
cover; (b) the insurance policy was taken for the benefit of the partner
rather than the firm; and (c) no necessity or expediency of the person being
keyman and the policy being taken for the benefit of the firm was
established. When benefit of policy was assigned to the insured, the policy
cannot be said to be for the benefit of the assessee firm. We see no merits
in these objections to the commercial expediency. As for the fall in
turnover, the benefit of an expenditure cannot be, by any stretch of logic,
relevant to determine its commercial expediency, and, in any case. Such a
benefit of hindsight cannot be available at the point of time when business
decisions are made; more often than not, these are the tools of post mortem
of events, rather than inputs for the decision making. As for the other
issues raised by the Assessing Officer as such, we may refer to the
following observations made, in this context, by Hon'ble Delhi High Court
in the case of CIT Vs Rajan Nanda etc. [(2012) 349 ITR 8 (Del)]: