SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION, MUMBAI V. ADDL CIT 23(3), MUMBAI

ITA 961/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75431 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 05-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PITAMBAR DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: V G GINDE
• Keywords: Business expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 10(10D)

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BENCH, MUMBAI . . , , , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA , JUDICIAL MEMBE R . / ITA NO. 961 / MUM./ 2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 06 07 ) M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION JAY COMMERCIAL PLAZA, 5 TH FLOOR S.L. ROAD & M.G. ROAD JUNCTION MULUND (W), MUMBAI 400 080 .. / APPELLANT V/S ADDL. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 3 ( 3 ), PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 400 051 .... / RESPONDENT . / PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER AALSF3084K / ASSESSEE BY : MR. V.G. GINDE / REVENUE BY : MR. PITAMBAR DAS / DATE OF HEARING 05 . 0 2 .201 4 / DATE OF ORDER 12.02.2014 / ORDER , / PER AMIT SHUKLA , J.M. THE PRESEN T APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2011 , PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) X I , MUMBAI, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 2 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT ' ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06 07 , ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` 10,00,481 BEING THE PREMIUM PAID BY THE APPELLANT ON THE KEYMAN IN SURANCE POLICIES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONCERNED POLICIES WERE NOT KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICIES AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DEFINITION OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY AS GIVEN IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 10(10D) OF THE ACT. YOUR APPELLAN T, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE AFORESAID DISALLOWANCE BE DELETED. 2 . FACTS IN BRIEF , QUA THE AFORESAID ISSUE, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH HAS CLAIMED KEYMAN INSURANCE OF ` 10,00,481. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER LIC CIRCULAR NO. 1729/4 , DATED 24 TH JULY 2000, THE KEYMAN INSURANCE TO PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS NOT BEING ALLOWED BECAUSE THE PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS IS COVERED BY DIFFERENT PARTNERS AND ONLY THE ACTIVE PARTNERS ARE SOURCE OF PROFITS TO THE FIRM . THEREFORE, THE KEYMAN INSURA NCE WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE LIFE OF ACTIVE PARTNER PROVIDED CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE COMPLIED. THESE REQUIREMENTS, AS PER THE LIC CIRCULAR HAS BEEN INCORPORATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 5.1. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FULFILLED ANY OF THE ABOVE CONDITIONS. HE FURTHER REFERRED TO ANOTHER IRDA CIRCULAR , WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: 'REFERENCE IS INVITED TO OUR CIRCULAR REF NO. ACTUARIAL/2017/4 DATED 4TH APRIL, 2005 VIDE WHICH IT WAS DECIDED TO ALLOW ONLY TERM ASSURANCE P LAN UNDER THE KEYMAN INSURANCE. THE DECISION WAS TAKEN IN VIEW OF THE INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY INSURANCE REGULATORY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (IRDA) VIDE THEIR CIRCULAR DATED 27 TH APRIL, 2005. THE IRDA WAS TO CONDUCT A DETAILED EXAMINATION OF POL ICIES MARKETED BY SOME INSURER'S IN MARCH, 2005 WHEN IT WAS REPORTED TO THEM THAT CERTAIN ABERRATION HAD TAKEN PLACE TO THE SALE OF KEYMAN INSURANCE, IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN IRDA CIRCULAR THAT THEY WILL ISSUE FRESH GUIDELINE AFTER RENEW IS OVER'. BEFORE IRDA COULD ISSUE RECOVERY GUIDELINES IN THE MATTER, IT HAS COME TO THEIR NOTICE THAT A FEW INSURERS ARE OFFERING ENDOWMENT/UNIT LINKED M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 3 PLANS UNDER PARTNERSHIP INSURANCE WHICH IS AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF THEIR CIRCULAR DATED APRIL, 2005. IRDA HAS, THEREFORE, CLA R IFIED THAT 'WHEN THE PREMIUM FOR THE I NSURANCE ON THE LIFE OF AN EMPLOYEE IS PAID BY THE EMPLOYER OR WHERE THE P REMIUM ON THE LIFE OF A PARTNER IS PAID BY ANOTHER PARTNER OR BY PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ONLY TERM INSURANCE COVERS CAN BE OFFERED IN SUCH CASES'. THIS CIRCULAR IS ISSUED TO CONVEY THE VIEW POINT OF IRDA AND TO CLA R IFY HE DOUBTS IN RESPECT OF KEYMAN/PARTNERSHIP INSURANCES' . 3 . THUS HE HELD THAT NONE OF THE CONDITIONS AS PER THE AFORESAID CIRCULAR HAS BEEN SATISFIED BY THE PARTNERS AND THE FIRM. MORE OVER, THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.762 DATED 18 TH FEBRUARY 1998, STATES THAT KEYMAN IS AN EMPLOYEE OR A DIRECTOR AND T HERE IS NO REFERENCE OF A PARTNER. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TWO POLICES , ONE FROM BAJAJ ALLIANZ AND THE OTHER FROM TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE IN THE NAME OF TWO PARTNERS. WITH REGARD TO THESE TWO POLICIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE POLICY FROM BAJAJ ALLIANZ HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO TWO PARTNERS IN MARCH 2007 AND WHEN THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING AMOUNT OFFERED FOR TAXATION I N THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR, IT WAS STATED THAT SINCE THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF POLICY HAVE NOT BEEN LAPSED , NO SURRENDER VALUE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THEM. AFTER EXAMINING THE POLICY, HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TWO POLICIE S WORTH ` 12.50 LAKHS EACH , FROM BAJAJ ALLIANZ IN THE NAME OF TWO PARTNERS AND THE NAME OF THE POLICY IS ALLIANZ BAJAJ GAIN PLUS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE BECOMES ONLY A NON PARTICIPATING BENEFICIAR Y. THIS POLICY ALLOCATES PREMIUM AND UNITS AND IS NOT PRIMARILY FOR LIFE OF THE PERSON , ALTHOUGH DEATH BENEFICIARIES ARE GIVEN. THUS, IT IS NOT A TERM POLICY BUT UNIT LINKED POLICY AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER KEYMAN INSURANCE P OLICY. AS REGARDS POLICIES FROM TATA AIG LIFE OF ` 10.65 LAKHS EACH, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM FOR THREE YEARS AND THE SAID POLICY HAS ALSO BEEN ASSIGNED IN M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 4 THE NAME OF THE PARTNERS ON 31 ST MARCH 2007. THUS, HE HELD THAT SUCH A CLAIM OF PREMIUM PAID ON INSURANCE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM OF THE ALLEGED KEYMAN INSURANCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 4 . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), AFTER EXAMINING THE POLICIES OF BAJAJ ALLIANZ AND TATA AIG, HELD THAT THE SCHEMES ARE NOT FOR LIFE INSURANCE CLAIM PER SE , BUT IT IS A CAPITAL APPRECIATION SCHEME FOR WHICH HIGHER PR EMIUM IS CHARGED AND POLICY HOLDER OR LIFE INSURER IS PROVIDED MAINLY CAPITAL APPRECIATION BY INVESTING THE MAJORITY OF THE PREMIUM IN MUTUAL FUND UNITS, THEREFORE, THE SCHEME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INSURANCE POLICY RATHER IT IS AN INVESTMENT SCHEME IN THE GARB OF INSURANCE. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE POLICY HAS BEEN ASSIGNED IN FAVOUR OF THE PARTNERS AND THIS POLICY IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF IRDA GUIDELINES. MOREOVER, THE BENEFICIARY IS NOT A EMPLOYEE OR DIRECTOR BUT IS A PARTNER. IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AS TO H OW THE MATURITY VALUE OF THE POLICY HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSIGN ED IN THEIR BOOKS AND WHETHER MATURITY SUMS HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION OR NOT. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE MATURITY SUMS BUT IT HAS BEEN RE CEIVED BY THE ASSIGNEE. IN KEYMAN INSURANCE, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT ALL THE BENEFITS ACCRUED AND RECEIVED BY THE POLICY HOLDER ONLY AND NOT BY SOMEONE ELSE. BOTH THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE FAILED TO GIVE FULL DETAILS OF THE POLICIES DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUIS ITION BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, HE HELD THAT THE PREMIUM PAID BY THE INSURANCE POLICIES IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BENEFITED BY THE MATURITY OF THE POLIC Y SINCE THEY WERE ASSIGNED TO THE PARTNERS THE DEDUCTION FOR THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 5 . BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT FIRST OF ALL THE REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE LIC CIRCULAR IS NOT M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 5 APPLICABLE BECAUSE INSURANCE POLICIE S ARE GOVERNED BY IRDA. THE KEYMAN INSURANCE IS ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 10(10B). THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THESE POLICIES PRIOR TO 31 ST MARCH 2005 AND THESE POLICIES SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED FOR KEYMAN I NSURANCE P OLICY. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS TA KEN THE POLICIES FOR ITS TWO PARTNERS UNDER KAYMAN I NSURANCE P OLICY ONLY AND ANY PAYMENT MADE TOWARDS PREMIUM IS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. INSOFAR AS REFERENCE TO THE IRDA CIRCULAR OR GUIDELINES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS BEEN ISSUED MUCH AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE POLICY. THUS, SUCH IRDA GUIDELINES WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN ASSESSEES CASE. MOREOVER, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S B.N. EXPORTS, [2010] 323 ITR 178 (BOM.) HELD THA T EVEN IF THE KEYMAN I NSURANCE P OLICY IS OBTAINED ON A LIFE OF A PARTNER TO SAFEGUARD THE FIRM, THEN THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OF SUCH POLICY BY FIRM IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT THESE POLICIES ARE ONLY CAPITAL APPRECIATION SCHEME FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT UNDER THE GRAB OF INSURANCE, HE SUBMITTED THAT FIRST OF ALL THE TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE POLICY WAS PURELY A LIC POLICY, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE POLICY DOCUMENT AND SO IS TH E BAJAJ ALLIANZ POLICY WHICH WAS ALSO A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY . ALL THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE POLICY DOCUMENT ITSELF PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THUS, SUCH AN OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. AS REGARDS THE OTHER FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN BENEFITED WITH THE MATURITY OF THE POLICY AND THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE POLICY IS IN THE FAVOUR OF THE PARTNERS, THEREFORE, THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION , IS ALSO NOT CORRECT , BECAUSE NEITHER THE PARTNERS NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY MATURITY AMOUNT AS THE POLICY WAS SURRENDERED WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 6 AND AS PER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE POLICY DOCUMENT ITSELF, IF THE POLICY IS SURRENDERED WITHIN TH E PERIOD OF THREE YEARS , NO MATURITY AMOUNT WOULD BE GIVEN. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE PENALTY CLAUSE FOR THE SURRENDER UNDER BOTH THE DOCUMENTS. THUS, SUCH A PRESUMPTION BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) THAT MATURITY B ENEFITS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSIGNEE ONLY AND, THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION CANNOT BE ALLOWED, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT EVEN IF AFTER PAYING THE PREMIUM THEY HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE PARTNERS OR TO POLICY HOLDER THEN ALSO THE INSURANCE PREMIUM PAID WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, HE STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S RAJAN NANDA & ORS. [ 2012] 349 ITR 008 (DEL.) 6 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT FIRST OF ALL IRDA IS GOVERNING BODY AND CIRCULAR DATED 27 TH APRIL 2005 PROHIBITS THE KEYMAN INSURANCE IN CASE OF A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. IF SUCH A KEYMAN INSURANCE HAS NOT BEEN AUTHORIZED BY IRDA, IT CANNOT BE HELD TO BE KEYMAN INSURANCE AT ALL . THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 762 AS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DELIBERATELY NOT CONSIDERED THE PARTNER S OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE PARTNERS ARE KEYMAN HAS NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. IN ANY CASE, THE MATURITY AMOUNT IS RECEIVABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE POLICY HOLDER WHICH IS IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PARTNER, THEREFORE, THE PREMIUM PAID BY THE FIRM CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. HE THUS, STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S). 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BOUGHT TWO KEYMAN INSURANCE P OLICIES VIZ., TATA M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 7 AIG LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AND AND BAJAJ AL LIANZ ON 28 TH MARCH 2005 , IN FAVOUR OF TWO PARTNERS. THESE POLICIES ARE LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES WHICH ARE EVIDENT FROM THE CLAUSE MENTIONED IN THE POLICY DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE PREMIUM OF THESE POLICIES HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSES SEE FIRM AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CLA IMED AS DEDUCTION UNDER KEYMAN INSURANCE P OLICY. IT APPEARS THAT AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THESE POLICIES, IRDA CAME UP WITH CIRCULAR DATED 27 TH APRIL 2005 THAT PARTNERSHIP INSURANCE IN THE NAME OF PARTNER WILL NOT BE COVERED UNDER KEYMAN INSURANCE BUT AS A TERM INSURANCE COVER. THUS, SUCH IRDA CIRCULAR CANNOT BE ADVERSELY VIEWED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE POLICY UNDER KEYMAN I NSURANCE S CHEME FROM TWO REPUTED INSURANCE COMPANIES THERE WAS NO SUCH REGULATION. THE OTHER OBJECTIONS OF THE REVENUE ARE THAT THE DEDUCTION OF THE PREMIUM UNDER KEYMAN INSURANCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE CASE OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM, IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN B .N. EXPORTS (SUPRA) , WHEREIN , IT HA S BEEN HELD THAT IF THE KEYMAN INSURANCE P OLICY IS OBTAINED ON A LIFE OF A PARTNER, TO SAFEGUARD THE FIRM AGAINST A DISRUPTION OF BUSINESS, THEN THE PAYMENT FOR PREMIUM ON SUCH POLICY IS LIABLE FOR DEDUCTION AS BUSINESS E XPENDITURE. THUS, EVEN IF A KEYMAN INSURANCE HAS BEEN TAKEN IN THE NAME OF A PARTNER BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, THEN ALSO THE DEDUCTION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM. THE OTHER MAIN OBJECTIONS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS BEEN THAT FIRSTLY , THESE ARE NOT INSURANCE POLICY AS SUCH BUT ARE MAINLY FOR CAPITAL APPRECIATION UNDER THE INVESTMENT SCHEME AND SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE MATURITY SUM BUT IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE PARTNERS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE GI VEN DEDUCTION FOR ANY PREMIUM PAID. INSOFAR AS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS CONCERNED, WE DECLINED TO AGREE WITH THIS M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 8 CONCLUSION , BECAUSE ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BOUGHT A POLICY UNDER A LIFE INSURANCE SCHEME, THEN WHETHER THE INSURANCE COMPANY IS MAKING INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS FOR CAPITAL APPRECIATION OR UNDER ANY OTHER INVESTMENT SCHEME , WILL NOT MAKE ANY MATERIAL DIFFERENCE. INSOFAR AS THE ASSESSE E IS CONCERNED, IT HAS BOUGHT A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY , UNDER KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY ON WHICH PREMIUM HAS BEEN PAID. ON A PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE CLAUSES OF THAT IT IS THESE POLICIES THAT IT IS FOR LIFE INSURANCE ONLY. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), IT I S SEEN FROM THE POLICY DOCUMENT THAT IF THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERS THE POLICY WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS, THEN THERE IS NO SURRENDER OR MATURITY VALUE. UNDER BOTH THE POLICIES, THE MATURITY VALUE UP TO THREE YEARS IS ZERO. ONCE IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT TH AT THE POLICY HAS BEEN SURRENDERED AND IT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE POLICY HOLDERS ON WHICH NO MATURITY AMOUNT OR SURRENDER VALUE HAS BEEN RECEIVED, THEN SUCH AN OBSERVATION OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. MOREOVER, ONCE THE ASSESSEE AFTER NURSING THESE POLICIES FOR SOME TIME BY PAYING PREMIUM THEREUPON , HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THE PARTNERS , THEN ALSO THE PAYMENT OF SUCH A PREMIUM HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN RAJAN NANDA & ORS. (SUPRA). THUS, THE REASONING AND CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , CANNOT BE UPHELD . CONSEQUENTLY, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CL AIMING DEDUCTION OF ` 10,00,481 TOWARDS PREMIUM PAID IN RESPECT OF KEYMAN INSURANCE POLICY AND SHOULD BE ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY . THUS, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. M/S. SHRI NIDHI CORPORATION 9 8 . 8 . IN THE R ESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 12 TH FEBRUARY 2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH FEBRUARY 2014 SD / - . . N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD / - AMIT SHUKLA JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED : 12 TH FEBRUARY 2014 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) / THE ASSESSEE ; ( 2 ) / THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) ( ) / THE CIT(A ) ; ( 4 ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED ; ( 5 ) , , / THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI ; ( 6 ) / GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY / BY ORDER . / PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY / / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI