114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT

119 ITR 900High Court1979#4601 most cited

What is 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT authority for?

The computation of profits for a life insurance business must follow a special, artificial mode prescribed in the First Schedule of the Income Tax Act, rather than the standard method for ordinary assessees.

25

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Life Insurance Corporation of India v CIT · section 44 · First Schedule · computation of profits · life insurance business · artificial mode of computation · Bombay High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 115PSection 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 80IABSection 143(3)Section 37

Issues it is cited on

section 80iabsection 115psection 10(15)section 191section 2(11)deduction under section 80iasection 14a(2)deduction u/s 80iaunabsorbed depreciationsection 199transfer of capital assetenduring benefit

Judgments citing 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT

Candor Kolkata One Hi-Tech Structures Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle-5(2), New Delhi

ITA 193/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Unitech Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. ACIT Spl. Range-2, New Delhi

ITA 8377/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Project Ltd. (Formerly Knwon As Unitech Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addi. CIT Spl. Range- 2, New Delhi

ITA 6847/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Candor Kolkata One Hi- Tech Structures Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra vs. ACIT Special Range-2, New Delhi

ITA 6664/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Addl. CIT, Range- 2, New Delhi vs. Candor Gurgaon One Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 4598/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Addl.CIT, Special Range-9, New Delhi vs. Candor Gurgaon Two Developers and Project Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 4597/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Candor Kolkata One Hi- Tech Structures Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra vs. ACIT Spl. Rnage-2, New Delhi

ITA 3211/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Candor Gurgaon Two Developers & Project Pvt Ltd (Formerly Knwon As Unitech Developers and Projects Pvt. Ltd.), Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, Special Range- 2, New Delhi

ITA 3155/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Candor Gurgaon One Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly Known As Unitech Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd.), Mumbai vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 2, New Delhi

ITA 3154/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4247/MUM/2023[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

…his issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/2010 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/2010, the Hon'ble ITAT,Mumbai held as under:- "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (A…

Dy. Commisioner of Income Tax, Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4208/MUM/2023[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

…his issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/2010 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/2010, the Hon'ble ITAT,Mumbai held as under:- "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (A…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai, Income Tax Department, DCIT vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 4185/MUM/2023[2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

…his issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/2010 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/2010, the Hon'ble ITAT,Mumbai held as under:- "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (A…

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1428/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

…his issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/2010 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/2010, the Hon'ble ITAT,Mumbai held as under:- "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (A…

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1427/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

…his issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/2010 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/2010, the Hon'ble ITAT,Mumbai held as under:- "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (A…

DCIT-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue's appeal for the

ITA 1392/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 250Section 44

…his issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/2010 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos.6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/2010, the Hon'ble ITAT,Mumbai held as under: - "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT (…

Amit Kumar, Panipat Haryana vs. DCIT, NFAC (Delhi)

ITA 193/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Amitabh Shukla

Section 143(3)

…8, 8377, 3155, 4597, 6847, 3211 & 6664/Del/2019; & ITA No.193/Del/2021 (ii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [1972] 86 ITR 549 (SC); (iii) CIT vs. De Luxe Film Distributors Ltd. [1978] 114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bombay) 10.4 In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to decide this issue in favour of the assessee. 11. Issue No.5: The issue arises out of the determination of issue No.4 above for which the assessee has claimed that even if the settlement fee is considered to be not an allowable expense, the assessee companies are eligible for deduct…

ACIT Cir. 12(1)(2), Mumbai vs. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and cross objection of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2930/MUM/2019[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Mar 2021AY 2007-08
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 149Section 151

…ompanies) Regulations, 2002 mandates a life insurance company to prepare its financial statements after taking into consideration the actuarial valuation. 5.1.5. The jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. CIT: 119 ITR 900 summarized the scope of section 44 of the Act in the following terms:- ..... It is now well known that so far as the life insurance business is concerned, the computation of I he profits has to be made no! in the manner in which it is normally done in the case of an ordinary assessee hut according to the special and artificial mode prescribed in…

DCIT, Cir-12, Kolkata vs. M/S Linde India Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 323/KOL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2006-07

Section 143(3)Section 35Section 35DSection 37(1)

…. J.C. Budharaj & Co. (1993) 204 ITR 656 (Ori), - where services are terminated by payment of compensation with the result that a recurring liability is got rid of, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT [1979] 119 ITR 900 (Bom) held that the amount paid by way of compensation is in the nature of revenue expenditure. The ratio laid down in the cases cited here are, in my view, applicable to the facts of the case. Further, the foremost condition that in order to sustain a claim for deduction by way of business expenditure under sec. 37(1) of the Act, the expenditure…

Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 2863/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 199Section 28Section 44

…is issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos. 6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/20l0 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos. 6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/20lO, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai held as under:- "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT…

Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai vs. CIT 1, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed and assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos

ITA 3495/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 199Section 28Section 44

…is issue. The IT AT directed the AO to re-adjudicate the matter keeping in view the decisions of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos. 6854 to 6856, 7765 and nl3/Mum/20l0 and LIC Vs CIT (115 ITR 45,51 ITR 773 and 119 ITR 900). 6.2 In the case of ICICI Prudential Insurance Vs ACIT Vide ITA Nos. 6854 to 6856, 7765 and 7213 um/20lO, the Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai held as under:- "49. In view of the above and respectfully following the same, we hold that assessee is entitled to exemption under section 10. Therefore, we do not see any reason to differ from the order of the CIT…

114 ITR 434 (CAL.); and (iv) Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT (119 ITR 900) — Cited in 25 Judgments | BharatTax