• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

Delhi High Court holds section 44 of the Act being a special provision for insurance companies, overrides the applicability of section 14A of the Act for such companies

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2025

Membagikan "Delhi High Court holds section 44 of the Act being a special provision for insurance companies, overrides the applicability of section 14A of the Act for such companies"

Copied!
3
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

Tax Insights

from India Tax & Regulatory Services

www.pwc.in

Delhi High Court holds section 44 of the Act being a special provision for insurance companies, overrides the applicability of section 14A of the Act for such companies

March 13, 2020

In brief

Recently, the Delhi High Court1 upheld the Delhi bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal’s (Tribunal) order, holding that the provisions of section 14A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) are not applicable in case of insurance companies. The High Court held that section 44 of the Act, which is a special provision dealing with the insurance business, overrides various provisions of the Act, including those generally dealing with the computation of profits and gains from any business.

Therefore, the overriding provisions of section 44 of the Act would also cover the provisions of section 14A of the Act. Consequently, the High Court held that the Tax Officer (TO) could not have made any disallowance under section 14A of the Act for an insurance company.

In detail

Facts

• The taxpayer, a non-life insurance company, earned exempt income and claimed that it had not incurred any expenditure in earning such exempt income.

• The TO made an addition under section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (the Rules) rejecting the

contentions of the taxpayer.

• The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) ruled in favour of the taxpayer and reversed the

disallowance.

1 ITA No. 172/ 2020

• On further appeal, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the TO relying on its previous orders passed in the taxpayer’s case.

Revenue’s contentions

• The Revenue argued that the applicability of section 14A of the Act does not stand excluded on reading section 44 with the first schedule of the Act.

• The objective of section 14A of the Act is to prevent the taxpayer from claiming double benefit, by claiming deduction of expenditure incurred in deriving income

that does not form part of the total income.

High Court’s decision

• The High Court held that no substantial question of law arose in the appeal filed by the Revenue.

• Section 14A of the Act does not have independent legs to stand on and begins with the words “while computing the total income under this chapter…” The chapter referred to in section 14A of the Act comprises various provisions, including those generally dealing with the computation of profits and gains of any business or

(2)

Tax Insights

2 pwc

profession. In addition, sections 28 to 43B of the Act form part of the provisions dealing with the computation of profits and gains of any business or profession, as adverted to by the High Court.

• Section 44 of the Act governs the computation of income of insurance companies. Section 44 of the Act begins with a non-obstante clause and overrides certain provisions of the Act stated therein,

including sections 28 to 43B of the Act.

• Therefore, the exclusionary provisions of section 44 of the Act would also cover section 14A of the Act.

2Oriental Insurance Company Limited v.

ACIT [2009] 130 TTJ 388 (Delhi);

• In order to compute the profits and gains of an insurance company, the TO has to resort to section 44 of the Act and the rules prescribed therein. In such a case, the TO cannot apply sections 28 to 43B of the Act, as they are specifically excluded by section 44 of the Act. Consequently, the provisions of section 14A of the Act would stand excluded by virtue of the overriding provisions of section 44 of the Act to compute the profits and gains of an insurance

company.

• Accordingly, the TO could not have made a disallowance under section 14A of the Act

Birla Sunlife Insurance Co. Limited v.

DCIT (ITA No. 602/Mum/2009);

for the insurance company.

The takeaways

• There are various Tribunal rulings2, wherein it has been held that provisions of section 14A are not applicable to insurance companies.

• This is a welcome decision as this is the first High Court judgement in case of an insurance company on this contentious issue.

Let’s talk

For a deeper discussion of how this issue might affect your business, please contact your local PwC advisor

ICICI Prudential Insurance Company Limited v. ACIT [2013] 140 ITD 41 (Mumbai)

(3)

Tax Insights

For private circulation only

This publication has been prepared for general guidance on matters of interest only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in this publication, and, to the extent permitted by law, PwCPL, its members, employees and agents accept no liability, and disclaim all responsibility, for the consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this publication or for any decision based on it. Without prior permission of PwCPL, this publication may not be quoted in whole or in part or otherwise referred to in any documents.

© 2020 PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited. All rights reserved. In this document, “PwC” refers to PricewaterhouseCoopers Private Limited (a limited liability company in India having Corporate Identity Number or CIN : U74140WB1983PTC036093), which is a member firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited (PwCIL), each member firm of which is a separate legal entity.

About PwC

At PwC, our purpose is to build trust in society and solve important problems. We’re a network of firms in 157 countries with over 276,000 people who are committed to delivering quality in assurance, advisory and tax services.

Find out more and tell us what matters to you by visiting us at www.pwc.com.

In India, PwC has offices in these cities: Ahmedabad, Bengaluru, Bhopal, Chennai, Delhi NCR, Hyderabad, Kolkata, Mumbai, Pune and Raipur. For more information about PwC India’s service offerings, visit www.pwc.in

PwC refers to the PwC network and/or one or more of its member firms, each of which is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details.

© 2020 PwC. All rights reserved

Follow us on:

Our Offices

Ahmedabad Bengaluru Chennai

1701, 17th Floor, Shapath V, Opp. Karnavati Club, S G Highway,

Ahmedabad – 380051 Gujarat

+91-79 3091 7000

6th Floor

Millenia Tower ‘D’

1 & 2, Murphy Road, Ulsoor, Bengaluru – 560 008 Karnataka

+91-80 4079 7000

8th Floor

Prestige Palladium Bayan 129-140 Greams Road Chennai – 600 006 Tamil Nadu

+91 44 4228 5000

Hyderabad Kolkata Mumbai

Plot no. 77/A, 8-2-624/A/1, 4th Floor, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034,

Telangana

+91-40 44246000

56 & 57, Block DN.

Ground Floor, A- Wing Sector - V, Salt Lake Kolkata - 700 091 West Bengal

+91-033 2357 9101/

4400 1111

PwC House Plot No. 18A,

Guru Nanak Road(Station Road), Bandra (West), Mumbai – 400 050 Maharashtra

+91-22 6689 1000

Gurgaon Pune For more information

Building No. 10, Tower - C 17th & 18th Floor,

DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon – 122002 Haryana

+91-124 330 6000

7th Floor, Tower A - Wing 1, Business Bay, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006 Maharashtra

+91-20 4100 4444

Contact us at

[email protected]

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Sentencing at the special criminal court As argued below, the sentences imposed by the SCC do not reflect a thorough understanding of the relevant provisions of the Penal Code: most

The continued possession of the explicit material obtained with the consent of the complainant cannot be regarded as an act of domestic violence and therefore having granted an order in

AD PARAGRAPH 34:- Whilst I admit the provisions of the section in question, I deny the allegation that the Labour Appeal Court was dealing with a constitutional matter and I insist

Discussion Existing Legal Framework of the Advisor of the Court for Children Section 11 of the Child Act 2001 is the sole provision of the children court advisors which only

Revenue’s contentions • Section 47iv of the Act is not applicable, as the parent company is holding 99.99% of the share capital of its subsidiary company and the remaining shares are

August 2021 Assessment order passed in violation of mandatory procedure laid under section 144C of the Act liable to be set aside – Bombay High Court In brief Recently, the High

Tax Insights from India Tax & Regulatory Services www.pwc.in The Supreme Court upholds constitutional validity of clause f of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, relating

The High Court held that the decision by the Department of Home Affairs declaring that the applicants were illegal foreigners subject to deportation under s.81 of the Immigration Act