General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT

240 ITR 139Supreme Court of India1999#1874 most cited

What is General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT authority for?

Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act applies to add back an amount only if it is an expenditure or allowance contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and is specifically disallowed. Without such a specific prohibition, amounts like provisions for preference share redemption or amortization cannot be added back to an insurance company's profits.

61

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT · 240 ITR 139 · Rule 5(a) First Schedule · sections 30 to 43A · insurance business profits · adding back expenditure · provision for redemption · amortization claim · specific prohibition.

Also reported as

106 Taxmann 389204 Taxmann.com 587

Sections most often in play

Section 1961Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 10(34)Section 1938Section 270A of the Income Tax ActSection 30Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act

Issues it is cited on

section 40(1)section 102section 37bsection 111asection 199section 111prohibited by lawsection 10(34)interest on securitiessection 114within four yearsfirst proviso to section 147

Judgments citing General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2806/KOL/2025[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2023-2024

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

…n excess of the prescribed limits." The relevant limit is a statutory cap, violation of which is not a mere internal allocation or guidance it is a binding legal ceiling. As observed by the Supreme Court in General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC), and cited further in CIT v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 371 (SC), the computation of income for non-life insurers is governed strictly by Section 44 and the First Schedule. However, Rule 5(b), First Schedule explicitly provides that "any expenditure other than expenditure which is not admissible under the provi…

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2804/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

…n excess of the prescribed limits." The relevant limit is a statutory cap, violation of which is not a mere internal allocation or guidance it is a binding legal ceiling. As observed by the Supreme Court in General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC), and cited further in CIT v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 371 (SC), the computation of income for non-life insurers is governed strictly by Section 44 and the First Schedule. However, Rule 5(b), First Schedule explicitly provides that "any expenditure other than expenditure which is not admissible under the provi…

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,NEW TOWN vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 5(1),, KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2803/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)Section 40C

…n excess of the prescribed limits." The relevant limit is a statutory cap, violation of which is not a mere internal allocation or guidance it is a binding legal ceiling. As observed by the Supreme Court in General Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC), and cited further in CIT v. Oriental Fire & General Insurance Co. Ltd. (2007) 291 ITR 371 (SC), the computation of income for non-life insurers is governed strictly by Section 44 and the First Schedule. However, Rule 5(b), First Schedule explicitly provides that "any expenditure other than expenditure which is not admissible under the provi…

DCIT, CC 6(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the revenue bearing ITA No

ITA 5394/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 10(15)(iv)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 194HSection 250Section 30Section 32Section 40Section 44

…1 ITA No.5394 /Mum/2025 Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.5394 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE BKC, Mumbai-400 051 COMPANY LIMITED, 15th Floor, Tower A Peninsula Business Park, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AABCT3518Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for Assessee Shri Mittul Jasolia Present for Revenue Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of hearing 18/12/2025 Date if pronouncement 23/12…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2830/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s meaning is to be given to the word "expenditure" occurring in rule 5(a)- the amortization claim cannot be considered as expenditure and, therefore, cannot be added back to the balance of the profits. In General Insurance Corporation (of India vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). the Supreme Court held that even if an item of debit is considered as an expenditure, it should further be such an expenditure ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and,…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 2827/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18
For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…o be given to the word \n\"expenditure\" occurring in rule 5(a)- the \namortization claim cannot be considered as \nexpenditure and, therefore, cannot be \nadded back to the balance of the profits. In \nGeneral Insurance Corporation (of India \nvs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). the \nSupreme Court held that even if an item of \ndebit is considered as an expenditure, it \nshould further be such an expenditure \nITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, \n2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 \n Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 \n107 \ncontemplated in sec…

DCIT 3.2.1, MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2823/MUM/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s meaning is to be given to the word "expenditure" occurring in rule 5(a)- the amortization claim cannot be considered as expenditure and, therefore, cannot be added back to the balance of the profits. In General Insurance Corporation (of India vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). the Supreme Court held that even if an item of debit is considered as an expenditure, it should further be such an expenditure ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and,…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2622/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s meaning is to be given to the word "expenditure" occurring in rule 5(a)- the amortization claim cannot be considered as expenditure and, therefore, cannot be added back to the balance of the profits. In General Insurance Corporation (of India vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). the Supreme Court held that even if an item of debit is considered as an expenditure, it should further be such an expenditure ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and,…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, Ground No.1 to 4 raised by the Assessee are allowed

ITA 2616/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Farooq IraniFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar&
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…s meaning is to be given to the word "expenditure" occurring in rule 5(a)- the amortization claim cannot be considered as expenditure and, therefore, cannot be added back to the balance of the profits. In General Insurance Corporation (of India vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). the Supreme Court held that even if an item of debit is considered as an expenditure, it should further be such an expenditure ITA No. 2616-2623 /Mum /2024, ITA No. 2845, 2841, 2836, 2834, 2827, 2830 & 2823 / Mum / 2024 & C.O. No. 97 & 96 / Mum / 2024 Assessment Year 2010-2011, 2012-2013 to 2019-2020 contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and,…

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 14.1.2, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. STAR UNION DAI-ICHI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

ITA 3100/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Nov 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Ms. Padmavathy S, Hon’Bleasst. Cit 14(1)(2), Star Union Dai-Chi Life Insurance Mumbai. Company Limited, Vs. 11Th Floor, Vishwaroop I.T.Park, Plot N.34,35 & 36 Sector 30A Of Iip Vashi, Mumbai 400 703. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta -Cit Dr Respondent By : Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kanti Datta -CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri Bhupendra Karkhanis
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

…2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 2018-19, 2019-20 & 2020-21) x. Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd., order dt. 10.01.2023 in ITA No.s 656 & 657/PUN/2021 for A.Ys. 2012-13 and 2013-14 13. Learned CIT(A) has further noticed decision of General Insurance Company of India 240 ITR 139 (SC), wherein the Supreme Court has held that Section 44 of the Act is a special provision governing computation of taxable income earned from the business of Insurance. 14. The learned Assessing Officer has observed that some of these decisions are subject matter of challenge before the constitutional courts. We find that unless the orders are…

DCIT 3(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 3150/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37

…ing is to be given to\nthe word \"expenditure\" occurring in rule 5(a)- the amortization claim\ncannot be considered as expenditure and, therefore, cannot be added\nback to the balance of the profits. In General Insurance Corporation (of\nIndia vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). the Supreme Court held that even\nif an item of debit is considered as an expenditure, it should further be\nsuch an expenditure contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and, therefore,\nunless there was a specific prohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be justified in. adding back the\namount under rule 5(a\.,…

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. ACIT - 3(2)(2), MUMBAI

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the\nrevenue is dismissed

ITA 2594/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 37

…ing is to be given to\nthe word \"expenditure\" occurring in rule 5(a)- the amortization claim\ncannot be considered as expenditure and, therefore, cannot be added\nback to the balance of the profits. In General Insurance Corporation (of\nIndia vs. CIT (1999) 240 ITR 139 (SC). the Supreme Court held that even\nif an item of debit is considered as an expenditure, it should further be\nsuch an expenditure contemplated in sections 30 to 43A and, therefore,\nunless there was a specific prohibition for such an allowance, the\ndepartmental authorities would not be justified in. adding back the\namount under rule 5(a\.,…

DCIT-3(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ECGC LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 3812/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

…nsurance Act and such a determination of income is binding on the AO and there is no power to tinker with such an account. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corp. of India vs CIT, reported in [1990] 240 ITR 139. Thus, when the income of the assessee as well as the expenditure are governed by specific provision which have an overriding effect, then it is not open for the AO to invoke the other provisions of the Act for carrying out the disallowance or adjustment in the income. Thus, we hold that, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in the case of the ass…

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs. ACIT, NEW MARINE LINES MUMBAI

ITA 3551/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A.R. a/wFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, D.R
Section 10(38)Section 14ASection 234Section 234B

…nsurance Act and such a determination of income is binding on the AO and there is no power to tinker with such an account. This proposition has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Insurance Corp. of India vs CIT, reported in [1990] 240 ITR 139. Thus, when the income of the assessee as well as the expenditure are governed by specific provision which have an overriding effect, then it is not open for the AO to invoke the other provisions of the Act for carrying out the disallowance or adjustment in the income. Thus, we hold that, no disallowance u/s 14A can be made in the case of the ass…

M/S SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,E-8, EPIP RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR vs. PCIT, JAIPUR-2, JAIPUR

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 260/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 30Section 44

…Pune Bench in case of Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT 38 DTR 282, Delhi ITAT in case of DCIT Vs. Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd. 92 TTJ 300 and decision of Supreme Court in case of General Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. CIT 240 ITR 139(PB 23-24)considering which the AO has not made any disallowance u/s 14A.Thus none of the condition ofclause (a), (b) & (c) of Explanation 2 to section 263 is applicable. Hence the order passed by AO cannot be held to be erroneous so far as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. In this connection reliance is placed on the following cases:- CIT…

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI

ITA 1952/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…Tax Act provides for adding back of only an expenditure or allowance, the provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added back. The appellant also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Corporation of India reported in 240 ITR 139. However, the said decision is also in respect of AY77-78 and it deals with the provision for redemption for preference 17 1952 & 1750/Del/2018 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. shares, which was held to be not an expenditure covered by section 30 to section 43B. 5.2 In view of amendment to Rule 5 including rule 5(a) w.e.f., 01-04- 2011, the d…

DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, LTU, NEW DELHI vs. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEW DELHI

ITA 1750/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 May 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh.Anubhav Sharmaita No. 1952/Del/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 M/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Vs. Dcit, Ltd. Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi New Delhi- 110002 Pan :Aaact0627R

Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 32

…Tax Act provides for adding back of only an expenditure or allowance, the provision for bad and doubtful debts cannot be added back. The appellant also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of General Insurance Corporation of India reported in 240 ITR 139. However, the said decision is also in respect of AY77-78 and it deals with the provision for redemption for preference 17 1952 & 1750/Del/2018 M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. shares, which was held to be not an expenditure covered by section 30 to section 43B. 5.2 In view of amendment to Rule 5 including rule 5(a) w.e.f., 01-04- 2011, the d…

ACIT-6(2), KOLKATA vs. M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLKATA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 498/KOL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…r to add back only that expenditure or allowance or a provision which was not admissible under the provisions of sections 30 to 43B. The appellant had brought to the attention of the ld AO of the facts and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 240 ITR 139 (SC). However, while making the assessment the ld AO had not considered the assessee's reference made to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 240 ITR 139 (SC) and he disallowed the sum of Rs.4,22,26,000/-. The assessee further submitted that as per the facts and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. O…

M/S THE ORIENTAL INSSURANCE CO.LTD.,,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

ITA 200/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Anubhav Sharmam/S. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The Dcit, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, Ltu, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaact0627R

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR
Section 10(38)Section 115Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 28Section 44

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, Vs. The DCIT, A 25/27, Asaf Ali Road, LTU, New Delhi New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AAACT0627R Assessee by : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Adv Shri Pulkit Verma, Adv Revenue by: Ms. Sarita Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing 11/10/2022 Date of pronouncement 22/11/2022 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, J. M.: 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 16.11.2015 of Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (…

DCIT 12 (2)(2), MUMBAI vs. INDIA FIRST LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6364/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit – 12(2)(2) V. M/S. India First Life Insurance Room No. 128F, 1St Floor Company Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road B-301, Tril It 4, Film City Road Mumbai - 400020 Malad(E), Mumbai - 400097 Pan: Aadcb6215G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Faruk IraniFor Respondent: Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 44

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DCIT – 12(2)(2) v. M/s. India First Life Insurance Room No. 128F, 1st Floor Company Ltd., Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road B-301, Tril IT 4, Film City Road Mumbai - 400020 Malad(E), Mumbai - 400097 PAN: AADCB6215G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Faruk Irani Department by : Shri Nihar Ranjan Samal Date of Hearing : 04.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 28.07.2022 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the orde…

Showing 1–20 of 61 · Page 1 of 4