DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SHRI NAVLEEN SINGH KHANNA, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the maturity amount was not taxable under Section 56(2)(iv) by following a previous similar decision concerning another partner of the same firm. The deletion of the addition by the CIT(A) was upheld.
What were the facts?
The assessee received Rs. 52,25,368/- as the maturity value of a Keyman Life Insurance Policy, which was previously assigned by a partnership firm to its partners. The Assessing Officer treated this amount as taxable under Section 56(2)(iv).
What were the issues?
Whether the maturity proceeds of a Keyman Life Insurance Policy, assigned by a firm to its partners, are taxable under Section 56(2)(iv) of the Income Tax Act.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 56(2)(iv),Section 10(10D)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
CO No.378/Del/2014 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM:
This appeal by the Revenue and the Cross Objection by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the CIT (A) on 21.01.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09.
The only issue raised by the Revenue in its appeal is against the deletion of addition of Rs.52,25,368/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 56(2)(iv) of the Act.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee received a sum of Rs.52,25,368/- as surrendered value of ‘Kotak Safe Investment Plan – Kotak Guaranteed Growth’ representing maturity value of ‘Keyman Life Insurance Policy.’ This amount was received by the assessee and claimed as exempt u/s 10(10D) of the Act. The Assessing Officer observed that M/s Tegh International debited a sum of Rs.19,99,701/- for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07. Since the partnership firm assigned this policy to the partners of the firm including the assessee, the Assessing Officer held that the maturity amount was CO No.378/Del/2014 chargeable to tax u/s 56(2)(iv) of the Act. The ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition.
After considering the rival submissions and perusing the relevant material on record, we find that similar issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in another partner of the same firm, namely, Shri Kavinder Singh Khanna. Vide order dated 31.08.2016, the Tribunal in has decided the issue in the assessee’s favour. A copy of such order has been placed on record. The ld. DR fairly admitted that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are, mutatis mutandis, similar to those considered and decided by the Tribunal in the case of Shri Kavinder Singh Khanna (supra). Respectfully following the precedent, we uphold the impugned order.
The assessee did not press its Cross Objection.
CO No.378/Del/2014 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed.
The order pronounced in the open court on 30.03.2017.
More judgments on Section 10(10D)
- Saurabh Bansal, Ludhiana vs Jao ITO Ward 6(1), LudhianaITA 673/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Apr 2026AY 2017-18
- Penninti Vivekananda Rao, Hyderabad vs ADIT (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 1494/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Nov 2025AY 2020-21
- Triveni Devi Bhutra, Kolkata vs Income Tax Officer Ward 61(4), KolkataITA 965/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed14 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
- Anupama Agarwal, Delhi vs DCIT 61.1, DelhiITA 5676/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19
- Yamini Arjan Bharwani, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 30(1), KolkataITA 800/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: Disposed30 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sukant Kumar vs. Union Of INDIA And 6 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026