SAURABH BANSAL, LUDHIANA,LUDHIANA vs. JAO ITO WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA, LUDHIANA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal upheld the addition, agreeing that since the premium exceeded 20% of the sum assured, the maturity proceeds were taxable. The Act does not allow for claiming a loss on such insurance policies, and gross maturity receipts are brought to tax.
What were the facts?
The assessee received maturity proceeds of Rs.14,69,372/- from an SBI LIC policy. The Income Tax Department added this amount to the assessee's income, stating that the premium paid exceeded 20% of the sum assured, making the proceeds taxable under Section 10(10D).
What were the issues?
Whether the maturity proceeds of a life insurance policy are taxable when the premium paid exceeds 20% of the sum assured, and if any deduction for premium paid is permissible.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, CHANDIGARH
(िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Saurabh Bansal ITO Ward – 6 (1) 709B, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana बनाम/ Vs. Aaykar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Punjab – 141001 Ludhiana (Punjab) - 141001 �ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AHQPB-4699-F (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Sh. Sudhir Sehgal (Advocate) – Ld. AR ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 09-04-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement 15-04-2026 : आदेश / O R D E R
Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 21-03-2025 in the matter of an intimation issued by CPC u/s 143(1) followed by rectification order u/s 154. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, the appeal is disposed-off as under. The sole grievance of the assessee is confirmation of addition of Rs.14,69,372/-.
The impugned addition has been made by CPC while processing the return of income u/s 143(1). The assessee filed rectification u/s 154 which stood rejected. The facts are that the assessee received maturity proceeds on SBI LIC policy for Rs.14,91,300/- on which tax was deducted by insurance company for Rs.14,913/-. The net proceeds of Rs.14,69,372/- was not offered to tax by the assessee and CPC made this addition. The assessee stated that the total premium paid on the LIC policy was Rs.12,00,029/- whereas net amount received on maturity was for Rs.11,47,540/- and therefore, there was effective loss of Rs.52,489/-. The Ld. CIT(A) noted that the assessee took this policy on 02-01-2012 for sum assured of Rs.12.31 Lacs. The premium was Rs.2,99,856/- which exceed 20% of the sum assured. Therefore, the assessee was not entitled for deduction u/s 10(10D) and maturity proceeds including surrender value would be taxable in the hands of the assessee. There was no provision in the act for claiming loss on insurance policy. As per the extant provisions, the maturity proceeds would either be taxable or non-taxable depending upon relevant exemption provisions. Therefore, the same was rightly brought to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal.
The basic facts are not in dispute. It is crystal clear that the premium of the policy exceeds 20% of the sum assured. The provisions of Sec.10(10D) provide that in case of a life insurance policy issued after 01-04-2003 but on or before 31-03-2012, if the premium payable exceed 20% of the actual sum assured, the maturity proceeds are taxable in the hands of the insured. Thus, it is the gross maturity receipts which are brought to tax. The extant statutory provisions do not envisage deduction of insurance premium from the maturity amount. Even otherwise, the premium paid under the policy could not be said to be an expenditure incurred wholly to earn the maturity proceeds. The premium paid under the policy is to be considered as a consideration to secure the life of the assured. Therefore, the adjudication of Ld. CIT(A) could not be faulted with.
The appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced on 15th April, 2026.
More judgments on Section 10(10D)
- 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
- Priyesh Singhania, Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 462/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed18 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026