Income Tax

Disallowance for prepaid insurance expenses set aside on the principle of consistency

Disallowance For prepaid insurance expenses set aside on the principle of consistency where incurrence of expenditure for the purposes of business was not disputed

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2580 (2018) (10) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties:
ACIT vs. Shri Satish Sehrawa
CIT Vs. Southern Roadways Ltd.,282 ITR 379(Mad)

The assessee had filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A) upholding the disallowance of expense of insurance policy made by Assessing Officer (AO).

During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee has paid an amount towards insurance premium and a significant part of these payments pertained to the next financial year. Accordingly, he disallowed the pre paid insurance amount not pertaining to year under consideration.

CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance so made by the Assessing Officer.

Before the Tribunal, the assessee submitted that the assessee was claiming complete insurance premium as deduction in the year of payment irrespective of the period of insurance in the earlier years and following the principle of consistency, expenses so claimed should be allowed.

It was submitted that where the approach so adopted by the Assessing Officer is accepted, it will distort the treatment of the expenditure in the past and in the subsequent years.

The Tribunal opined that where the factum of insurance premium being actually paid and the incurrence of expenditure for the purposes of business had not been disputed by the Revenue and the assessee had been consistently claiming the same in the year of incurrence and/or had been allowed by the Revenue in the past, and given by the nature of expenditure of insurance premium in the overall context of the business of the assessee, which undisputedly was not going to distort the determination of true profit/loss, such consistent claim of expenditure should not be disturbed.

However, the Tribunal clarified that where the claim of such expenditure is made in the first year then, the principle of consistency will not apply and infact, the stand taken for the year will set the precedent for the subsequent years.

Accordingly, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of verifying as to whether the assessee had been claiming similar expenditure towards insurance premium in the past in the year of incurrence and where the same is found to be correct, the AO was directed to allow the same following the principle of consistency and in light of the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Empanelment

FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms

Invitation For Empanelment Of Practising Chartered Accountants / Chartered Accountant Firms Forest Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (FDCM Limited), Nagpur,…

4 days ago
  • Empanelment

PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work

Press Registrar General of India (PGRI) invites application for empanelment of Chartered Accountants. The Press Registrar General of India manages…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner

CBDT notifies revised Form No. 169 for making application for registration as a valuer under section 514 and authorised income…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC

Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from statutorily available 30 days to 15 days seriously prejudiced assessee’s…

5 days ago
  • Income Tax

For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated

At the stage of registration u/s 12AB, the CIT(E) not empowered to adjudicate applicability of provisio to section 2(15) of…

6 days ago
  • Income Tax

Flower bed area not included in “built up area” to calculate eligible limit u/s 80IB(10)

Flower bed area could not be included in the definition of “built up area” to calculate eligible limit of 1000…

7 days ago