IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES, I MUMBAI Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member ITA Nos.6837 & 6832/Mum/2014 Assessment Years: 2005-06 & 2009-10 DCIT-10(1), M/s ICICI Lombard General 453, 4th Floor, Insurance Co Pvt Ltd. Aayakar Bhavan, ICICI Bank Towers, M.K. Marg, Vs. Banda Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400020 Bandra East, Mumbai-400051 (Revenue) (Assessee) PAN. No.AAACI7904G Revenue by Shri B.C.S. Naik CIT-DR Assessee by Ms. Arati Visanji Date of Hearing : 04/10/2016 Date of Order: 04/10/2016 2 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. O R D E R Per Joginder Singh(Judicial Member) Both these appeals are by Revenue for Assessment year 2005-06 & 2009-10, aggrieved by impugned orders both dated 14/08/2014 of ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. 2. In appeal for Assessment year 2005-06 (ITA No.6837/Mum/2014), ground raised pertains to holding that there was no need to deduct TDS on payments of Rs.16,85,47,839/-, made by assessee to M/s Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore, which was disallowed by Assessing Officer u/s 40(a)(ia) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter Act). 2.1. During hearing, ld. counsel for assessee, Ms. Arati Visanji, at outset, claimed that impugned issue is covered in favour of assessee by holding that proceedings u/s 263 of Act were quashed by Tribunal, therefore, Department appeal will not survive. This claim of assessee was not controverted by ld. DR, Shri V.C.S. Naik. 2.2. We have considered rival submissions and perused material available on record. facts, in brief, are that assessee is in business of general insurance, declared total income of Rs.14,70,36,890/- in its 3 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. return filed on 18/10/2005. regular assessment u/s 143(3), determining total income at Rs.46,29,51,572/- was completed on 12/12/2008. Ld. Commissioner invoked revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of Act dated 29/03/2011 directing Assessing Officer to frame fresh assessment and examined claim of assessee with respect to payments made to M/s Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore, amounting to Rs.16,85,47,839/-, for providing reinsurance business without deducting tax at source u/s 40(a)(ia) of Act. Assessing Officer upheld additions u/s 40(a)(ia) of Act but same were deleted by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) relying upon ITAT decision in assessee s own case for Assessment year 2004-05 in ITA No.2769/Mum/2011; 152 ITD 855 (Mum.). In meantime, assessee challenged invoking of revisional power by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax in ITA No.5777/Mum/2011, wherein, Tribunal quashed proceedings u/s 263 of Act by making following observations:- 1. This appeal by assessee is preferred against order of Ld. CIT-10, Mumbai dt.29.3.2011 pertaining to A.Y.2005-06. 2. grievance of assessee is that Ld. CIT erred in passing order u/s. 263 on ground that order passed by AO u/s. 143(3) of Act is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. assessee is further aggrieved by direction of CIT to AO to reframe assessment to disallow expenditure for payment of reinsurance premium to associated enterprises u/s. 40(a)(i) of Act. 3. assessee is engaged in general insurance business. assessee offers insurance in form of fire, engineering, health, motor, travel, marine and liability insurance policies. return of 4 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. income for year was filed on 18.10.2005 declaring total income at Rs. 14.70 crores. book profit was computed u/s. 115JB of Act at Rs. 44.03. Crores. assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of Act. assessed income was computed at Rs. 46.29 crores. Since tax payable on total income computed under normal provision of Act was greater than tax payable on book profit u/s. 115JB, total income computed under normal provision was taken as total income of assessee. 3.1. Invoking powers conferred upon him vide Sec. 263 of Act, CIT was of firm belief that assessee has made payment of Rs. 16,85,47,839/- without deducting tax at source to its associated enterprises M/s. Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore for providing reinsurance business. According to CIT, this payment was not considered and examined by AO for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of Act. 3.2. assessee was asked to explain why order u/s. 143(3) dt. 12.12.2008 should not be treated as erroneous and prejudicial to interest of Revenue. assessee filed detailed reply questioning CIT for invoking provisions of Sec. 263 of Act. It was explained that no tax was deducted at source on payment of Rs. 16.85 crores to its associated enterprises as no income accrued or arisen or is deemed to accrue or arise in India and provisions of Sec. 9 of Act are not applicable. It was further explained that said payment was exempt under Article 7 of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and Singapore. It was further explained that payment to associated enterprise was made in accordance with CBDT Circular No. 759 dt. 18.11.1997 and CBDT Circular No. 10 dt. 9.10.2002. It was brought to notice of CIT that assessee has obtained declaration from M/s. Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore that it is non resident engaged in business of reinsurance outside India and it does not have office or permanent establishment or fixed base in India. For this, assessee drew support from decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Toshuka Ltd. 126 ITR 525 wherein it has been held by Hon ble Supreme Court that if no operations are carried out in taxable territories, it follows that income accruing or arising abroad through or form any business connection in India cannot be deemed to accrue or arise in India. 3.3. submissions made by assessee did not find any favour with CIT. Relying upon certain judicial decisions, CIT came to conclusion that order dt. 12.12.2008 is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interest of Revenue. CIT proceeded by cancelling said order with direction to AO to frame fresh assessment. 4. Aggrieved by this assessee is before us. 5. Ld. Counsel for assessee drew our attention to notice issued by AO u/s. 142(1) of Act dt. 18th August, 2008. It is say of Ld. Counsel that during course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, AO had made specific 5 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. enquiries in relation to payments/expenses on which tax was deductible at source, details of amount remitted/sent abroad and detailed enquiries were made in connection with transactions reported in Form 3CEB. Ld. Counsel continued by saying that necessary enquiries were made by AO against which assessee filed detailed reply which has been considered by AO before framing assessment u/s. 143(3) of Act. Therefore, order passed by CIT u/s. 263 is against facts of case. 6. Per contra, Ld. Departmental Representative strongly supported order of CIT. 7. We have carefully considered rival submissions and perused assessment order and order of learned Commissioner. first thing which has to be considered is whether Learned Commissioner has rightly assumed power under section 263 of Act. Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. 243 ITR 83 has laid down following ratio:- bare reading of section 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that prerequisite for exercise of jurisdiction by Commissioner suo motu under it, is that order of Income- tax Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to interests of Revenue. Commissioner has to be satisfied of twin conditions, namely, (i) order of Assessing Officer sought to be revised is erroneous; and (ii) it is prejudicial to interests of Revenue. If one of them is absent if order of Income- tax Officer is erroneous but is not prejudicial to Revenue or if it is not erroneous but is prejudicial to Revenue recourse cannot be had to section 263(1) of Act. provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by Assessing Officer; it is only when order is erroneous that section will be attracted. incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law will satisfy requirement of order being erroneous 8. Now, let us see in light of above ratio whether assessment has been made on incorrect assumption of facts or incorrect application of law. first observation of CIT that assessee had made payment of Rs. 16.85 crores to its associated enterprises M/s. Odyssey America Reinsurance Corporation, Singapore without deducting tax at source is hit by provisions of Sec. 40(a)(i) of Act. On identical issue in immediately preceding assessment year i.e. 2004-05, matter travelled upto Tribunal and Tribunal decided issue against Revenue and in favour of assessee vide ITA No. 2769/M/2011 dt. 30.8.2013. At para 2.3 of its order Tribunal inter alia held as under: assessee in this case had obtained reinsurance covered from Singapore Company which was engaged in business of reinsurance outside India. payment made by assessee to Singapore Company was not for obtaining any technical/managerial services or for use of any property or asset. Therefore payment could not be considered as royalty or FTS. 6 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. payment could only be considered as business income in hands of Singapore Company which could be taxed in India only if said company had PE in India. claim of assessee that Singapore Company did not have any establishment or employee in India has not been controverted before us. Therefore, in our view payment to Singapore Company was not taxable in India. Tribunal finally concluded by confirming order of CIT(A) directing AO to delete addition. 10. Considering decision of Co ordinate Bench on identical issue, it can be safely concluded that assessment order has not been made on incorrect application of law. On facts, perusal of questionnaire issued along with notice u/s. 142(1) of Act dt. 18th August, 2008 shows that vide Question No. 29 AO had sought details of all payments/expenses on which tax was deductible at source as per provisions of Act. Question No. 35 was with respect to details of amount remitted/sent abroad supported by RBI prescribed certificate issued by C.A u/s. 195 of Act, 1961 and Question No. 37 was in connection with transactions reported in Form 3CEB. assessee had filed detailed reply in respect of these queries raised during assessment proceedings. Thus observation of CIT that payment of Rs. 16.85 crores to its associated enterprise has not been considered and examined by AO for disallowance u/s. 40(a)(i) of Act is incorrect in light of facts stated hereinabove. 10.1. AO has taken view which may be different from view of Ld. Commissioner and assuming that view taken by AO is loss to Revenue but Hon ble Supreme Court in Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. (supra) has held that every loss of revenue as consequence of order of AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to interest of Revenue, for e.g. when Income Tax Officer adopted one of courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which Ld. Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as order which is erroneous or prejudicial to interest of Revenue unless view taken by Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law. 10.11. Bombay High Court in CIT Vs Gabrial India Ltd., (1993) 203 ITR 108 has held that decision of Income Tax Officer could not be held to be erroneous simply because in his order, he did not make elaborate discussion in that regard . Considering facts in totality in light of judicial decisions discussed hereinabove, in our understanding of law, assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to interest of revenue. We, therefore, set aside impugned order passed by Ld. Commissioner u/s. 263 and restore that of Assessing Officer passed u/s. 143(3) of Act. 12. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. 7 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2.3. Thus, Tribunal by aforesaid order held that invocation of revisional jurisdiction was not valid. In view of this uncontroverted factual matrix, appeal of Revenue is dismissed as in-fructuous. 3. So far as, ITA No.6832/Mum/2014, Assessment year 2009-10 is concerned, only ground raised by Revenue pertains to exemption claimed u/s 10(15), 10(34) and 10(38) of Act. ld. counsel for assessee claimed that this issue is already covered in favour of assessee by decision of Tribunal for Assessment year 2008-09 (ITA No.3698/Mum/2013) in assessee s own case. This factual matrix was consented to be correct by ld. DR. 3.1. We have considered rival submissions and perused material available on record. In view of above, we are reproducing hereunder relevant portion from aforesaid order dated 31/08/2016 (ITA No.3698/Mum/2013) for ready reference and analysis:- 2. captioned assessee is engaged in business of General Insurance and for assessment year under consideration, it filed return of income declaring income of Rs.111,10,82,730/-. Assessing Officer assessed total income at Rs.224,99,28,526/- under normal provisions of Act. This income was deduced after disallowing exemptions 8 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. claimed by assessee u/s 10(38), 10(15) and 10(34) of Act on account of profit on sale of investments Rs.54,18,03,880/-; interest Rs.14,11,04,910/-; and, dividend Rs.5,87,77,006/- respectively. Additionally, Assessing Officer also disallowed Rs.39,71,60,000/- debited in Profit & Loss Account on account of Provision for expenses on ground that such expenses could not be said to have accrued as it was mere provision. sum and substance of stand of Assessing Officer was that income of assessee from business of Insurance was required to be determined in terms of Sec. 44 of Act read with First Schedule of Act and accordingly, exemptions under Sec. 10(38) or Sec. 10(15) or Sec. 10(34) of Act were not applicable. aforesaid action of Assessing Officer was carried in appeal before CIT(A) on various issues. On some issues, CIT(A) has allowed relief against which Revenue is in appeal before us, whereas on issues where action of Assessing Officer has been upheld, assessee is in appeal before us. 3. In this background, we may now take up appeal of Revenue, wherein Grounds of appeal read as under :- "On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, Ld CIT(A)'s erred in 1. i) allowing deduction u/s.10(38) for gains/loss on sale of investment aggregating to Rs.54,18,03,880/-; thereby ignoring fact that assessee company is engaged in insurance business and that Computation of its Income from insurance business is to be governed as per special section 44 of Income Tax Act r.w.Rule 5 contained in First Schedule. 9 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. ii) in not appreciating that provisions of sec. 10(15), 10(34) and 10(38) were not applicable in case of assessee company. 2. i) Deleting disallowance of AO made on account of interest Rs. 14,11,04,910/ - claimed by assessee company as exempt u/s. 10(15) and dividend Rs.5,87,77,006/- exempt u/s. 10(34/35) of Act ignoring fact that assessee company is engaged in insurance business and that Computation of its Income from insurance business is to be governed as per special section 44 of Income Tax Act r.w.Rule 5 contained in First Schedule. ii) in not appreciating that provisions of sec. 10(15), 10(34) and 10(38) were not applicable in case of assessee company. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 4. issue raised by Revenue in Ground of appeal no. 1 arises from action of CIT(A) in holding that assessee was eligible for claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of Act with respect to gain/loss on sale of investments aggregating to Rs.54,18,03,880/-. On this aspect, it was common point between parties that such issue had come up before Tribunal in earlier assessment years also and claim of assessee has been upheld. In this context, it is noticed that CIT(A) has followed decision of Tribunal for Assessment Year 2003-04 vide order dated 10.10.2012 in ITA No. 2398/Mum/2009. relevant discussion in order of Tribunal dated 10.10.2012 (supra) reads as under :- 10 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. 5. We have considered rival submissions as well as relevant material on record. There is special provision for computation of income chargeable under head profits and gain inter-alia in business of Insurance under section 44 of I T Act and same shall be computed in accordance with Rule containing in first schedule of Act. profits and gains of business of insurance other than life insurance shall be computed as per Rule 5 of First Schedule as under: 5. profits and gains of any business of insurance other than life insurance shall be taken to be profit before tax and appropriations as disclosed in profit and loss account prepared in accordance with provisions of Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) or rules made thereunder or provisions of Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 (4 of 1999) or regulations made thereunder, subject to following adjustments; a. Subject to other provisions of this rule, any expenditure or allowance including any amount debited to profit and loss account either by way of provision for any tax, dividend, reserve or any other provision as may be prescribed which is not admissible under provisions of sections 30 to 43B in computing profits and gains of business shall be added back; b. (i) any gain or loss on realisation of investments shall be added or deducted, as case may be, if such gain or loss is not credited or debited to profit and loss account; (ii) any provision for diminution in value of investment debited to profit and loss account, shall be added back; c. such amount carried over to reserve for unexpired risks as may be prescribed in this behalf shall be allowed as deduction. 5.1 bare reading of amended provisions of Rule 5 of First Schedule makes it clear that profits and gains shall be taken to be profit before tax and appropriately disclosed in P&L Account prepared in accordance with Insurance Act, 1938 or Rule made there under or provisions of IRDA Act. There is no dispute that assessee before us has included profit on sale of investments in profit and gain as declared in accounts prepared in accordance with provisions of Insurance Act 1938. It is also not case of assessee that profits/gains on sale of investments is not required to be included in P&L Account 11 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. prepared in accordance with provisions of Insurance Act. Therefore, once profit on sale of investment is required to be included in P& L account in accordance with provisions of Insurance Act, then as per Rule 5 of First Schedule of I T Act, no adjustment is required to be made on account of amount of profits on sale of investment already included in P&L Account. Thus, we find force and substance in contention of ld DR that once assessee has included gain on sale of investments in P&L account prepared as per provisions of Insurance Act, 1938, then said amount cannot be reduced while computing income as per provisions of sec. 44 r.w First Schedule of I T Act. 5.2 However, in series of decisions of Tribunal view has been taken that amendment vide Finance Act 1988 w.e.f 1.4.89, sub rule (b) of Rule 5 of First Schedule was omitted with purpose to grand exemption to insurance companies with regard to profit on sale of investments. Tribunal has taken note of fact that in corollary, it has been provided in circular no.528 dated 16.12.1988 that loss incurred by general insurance companies on realization of investment shall not be allowed as deduction in computing profit chargeable to tax. 5.3 In latest decision dated 22.10.2010, this Tribunal in case of Tata AIG General Insurance Co Ltd vs ACIT in ITA No.2597/Mum/2009 after considering earlier decisions of Tribunal has held in paras 18 to 20 as under: 18. We have carefully considered rival contentions. There is no dispute that under guidelines issued by IRDA (Auditors Report) Regulations of 2002, for preparation of financial statements, profit on sale of investments is to be credited to Profit and Loss Account of insurance company. There is also no dispute that assessee has credited Profit and Loss Account with such profit question is whether such profit can be excluded and exemption can be claimed. Rule 5(b), as it stood before being omitted from 01.04.1989, was as follows: - any amount either written off or reserved in accounts to meet depredation of or loss on realization of investments shall be allowed as deduction, and any sums taken credit for 12 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. in accounts on account of appreciation of or gains on realization of investments shall be treated as part of profits and gains; Provided that Assessing Officer is satisfied about reasonableness of amount written off or reserved in accounts, as case may be, to meet depredation of or loss on realization of investment. argument on behalf of assessee primarily is that when rules for preparation of final accounts provide that profit on sale of investments, should be shown in credit side of Profit and Loss Account, then there was no question of rule 5(b) being applicable and that was reason why said rule was omitted with effect from 01.04.1989 and effect of omission is that where Profit and Loss Account already includes profit on sale of investments, same shall stand excluded. effect of omission of rule was considered by Pune Bench of Tribunal in its order dated 31 August 2009, in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, in ITA No: 1447/PN/2007 and CO No:521PN12007 (assessment year 2003-04). copy of said order has been filed before us. Tribunal has also considered Circular No.528 dated 16.12.1988. After analyzing impact of omission of rule 5(b) and Circular, Tribunal held as under. 8. conclusion can be drawn on basis of above elaborate discussion that deletion of sub rule (b) from Rule 5 of First Schedule was with specific purpose. This Schedule not only prescribes method of computation of income of Insurance Business in part (A) but also prescribe method of computation of other Insurance Business in Part (B). Rule 5 is within Part (B) and earlier it has prescribed method of taxation of profit on sale of investments which was later on scraped. Even by applying reverse logic we must arrive at same conclusion that had impugned income was earlier taxable under one specific clause but even on its deletion no clause was Introduced or replaced to prescribe method of taxation of such income;. Therefore Revenue Department has no right to tax such income in absence of any enabling provision. Naturally, such deletion cannot be treated superfluous action but this change had to give definite judicial meaning. We have to ascribe logical conclusion to 13 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. said deletion of sub rule (b) from Rule 5 and natural meaning is that after deletion income described therein is out of purview of computation of Insurance Business from First schedule therefore consequently cannot be taxed u/s 44 of I T Act. After expressing this view we hereby dismiss cross objection of revenue . 19: aforesaid order of Pune Bench, which was in case of company carrying on general insurance business, was followed by Mumbai Bench Of Tribunal in its order dated 17.09.2010, in case :of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., in ITA No: 338/Mum/2009 (assessment year 2004- 05) as also in its Order dated 30.04.2010, in case of Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., in :ITA No. 781/Mum/2007 (and other appeals).Copies of these orders have also been filed before us. In these orders it has been held that profit on sale of investment in case of assessee carrying on general insurance business cannot be brought to tax after omission of rule 5(b) and as per Circular cited above. Since controversy before us is identical, respectfully following orders of Pune and Mumbai Benches of Tribunal cited above, we direct Assessing Officer to exclude profit of Z47,45,699/- on sale of investments from assessment V 20. learned CIT DR, however, argued that effect of omission of rule 5(b) is just opposite of what assessee has contended. According to him, after 01.04.1989 exemption was taken away. He submitted further that profit on sale of investment has already been included in Profit and Loss Account and there is no authority to take it out even under rule 5(b) as it existed before 01.04.1989. According to him, there was no scope for applying rules of interpretation when statutory provisions are clear. Since matter is concluded by orders of Tribunal cited supra, where all these aspects have been considered, we are unable to take different view of matter. Thus Ground No.4 is allowed. 5.4 Since Tribunal has been taking consistent view on this issue in series of decisions as relied upon by ld AR of assessee; therefore, to maintain rule of consistency and uniformity on this aspect, we decide this issue in favour of assessee and against revenue. 14 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. 5. It is pointed out that in Assessment Year 2004-05 also Tribunal vide its order dated 18.09.2013 in ITA No. 4287/Mum/2009 followed its earlier decision dated 10.10.2012 (supra) and allowed claim of assessee. Similarly, in Assessment Years 2005-06 and 2006-07, Tribunal has upheld its earlier decisions vide order dated 05.06.2014 in ITA Nos. 1714 & 1715/Mum/2011. It has also been pointed out that in Assessment Year 2007-08 also, Tribunal vide its order dated 12.02.2015 in ITA Nos. 7844 & 7619/Mum/2011 has decided issue in favour of assessee. Apart therefrom, learned representative for assessee pointed out that view of Tribunal is also in consonance with clarification issued by CBDT vide Circular dated 21.02.2006, which has indeed been referred by CIT(A) in impugned order. 6. For all above reasons, and in absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice, action of CIT(A) is hereby affirmed. Thus, Revenue fails in Ground of appeal no. 1. 7. Insofar as Ground of appeal no. 2 is concerned, same relates to decision of CIT(A) in holding that assessee is eligible for claiming exemption u/s 10(15) and 10(34/35) of Act of Rs.14,11,04,910/- and Rs.5,87,77,006/- respectively. On this aspect, it is seen that CIT(A) allowed plea of assessee by referring to clarification issued by CBDT dated 21.02.2006 whereby it is clarified that exemption available to any 15 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. other assessee under any of clauses of Sec. 10 of Act shall also be made available to person carrying on non-life insurance business. Apart therefrom, at time of hearing learned representative for assessee has referred to decision of Tribunal in case of assessee for Assessment Year 2007-08 (supra), wherein similar issue has been decided in favour of assessee following precedents in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (supra). relevant discussion in order of Tribunal dated 12.02.2015 reads as under :- 3. issues raised vide Ground No. 2 have been considered by Tribunal in case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Company Ltd. in ITA No. 6854, 6855, 6856 & 6859/Mum/2010. Tribunal has considered issue at page 59 of its order and at page 60 Tribunal has considered decision of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT (Bom) and at page 62 Tribunal has considered decision in case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. and finally at para 49 of this order Tribunal concluded that assessee is entitled to get exemption under section 10 of Act, 1961. similar issue was considered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Writ Petition No. 2560 of 2011 dated 1/12/2011, wherein Hon'ble High Court has quashed and set aside notice issued for reopening of assessment when Revenue sought to reopen completed assessment for disallowing claim of deduction allowed under section 10 of Act. In original assessment order. Respectfully following aforesaid judicial decision we confirm findings of Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss ground No. 2 of appeal. Following aforesaid precedent, and basis on which CIT(A) has allowed relief, we find no reason to interfere with his ultimate decision, which is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground of appeal no. 2 raised by Revenue is also dismissed. 16 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. 3.2. In aforesaid order, Tribunal has deliberated upon issue in hand and found that for earlier Assessment years, Tribunal has decided issue in favour of assessee. Respectfully following aforesaid order of Tribunal and in absence of any contrary decision brought to our notice by either side and more specifically Revenue, we affirm stand of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, appeal of Revenue is having no merit, therefore, dismissed. Finally, both appeals of Revenue are dismissed. This order was pronounced in open court in presence of ld. representative from both sides at conclusion of hearing on 04/10/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) (Joginder Singh) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated : 04/10/2016 P.S/. . Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant (Respective assessee) 2. Respondent. 3. CIT, Mumbai. 4. CIT(A)- Mumbai, 5. DR, 17 ITA No.6832 & 6837/Mum/2014 ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Pvt. Ltd. ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai DCIT-10(1), Mumbai v. M/s ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Pvt Ltd