“Section 10(7)”

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI vs. HDFC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singhshri Sandeep Singh Karhailacit – 1(1)(1) 597, Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Road, Mumbai Maharashtra–400020……………. Appellant

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... judgment of the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Revenue's appeals are dismissed

ntax Officer may seriously affect the working of insurance\ncompanies. But apart from this consideration, we feel no\ndoubt that the language of section 10(7) and the\nSchedule to the Income-tax Act makes it perfectly\ncertain that the Income-tax Officer could not make the\nadjustment that

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Revenue's appeals are dismissed

ntax Officer may seriously affect the working of insurance\ncompanies. But apart from this consideration, we feel no\ndoubt that the language of section 10(7) and the\nSchedule to the Income-tax Act makes it perfectly\ncertain that the Income-tax Officer could not make the\nadjustment that

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Revenue's appeals are dismissed

ntax Officer may seriously affect the working of insurance\ncompanies. But apart from this consideration, we feel no\ndoubt that the language of section 10(7) and the\nSchedule to the Income-tax Act makes it perfectly\ncertain that the Income-tax Officer could not make the\nadjustment that

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Revenue's appeals are dismissed

ntax Officer may seriously affect the working of insurance\ncompanies. But apart from this consideration, we feel no\ndoubt that the language of section 10(7) and the\nSchedule to the Income-tax Act makes it perfectly\ncertain that the Income-tax Officer could not make the\nadjustment that

ECGC LIMITED,ECGC BHAWAN vs. NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Revenue's appeals are dismissed

ntax Officer may seriously affect the working of insurance\ncompanies. But apart from this consideration, we feel no\ndoubt that the language of section 10(7) and the\nSchedule to the Income-tax Act makes it perfectly\ncertain that the Income-tax Officer could not make the\nadjustment that

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

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand the Revenue's appeals are dismissed

ntax Officer may seriously affect the working of insurance\ncompanies. But apart from this consideration, we feel no\ndoubt that the language of section 10(7) and the\nSchedule to the Income-tax Act makes it perfectly\ncertain that the Income-tax Officer could not make the\nadjustment that

JCIT (OSD), I/C DCIT, CIRCLE-8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue stands dismissed and appeal/CO of assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Circle-8(3)(1) Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. Cross Objection No. 80/Mum/2023 Arising Out Of I.T.A. No.1897/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) M/S. Tata Aia Life बिधम/ Jt. Commissioner Of Insurance Co. Ltd. Income Tax (Osd)- I/C Vs. 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Dcit, Circle-8(3)(1) Peninsula Business Park, Aaykar Bhavan, Room Senapati, Bapat Marg, No. 615, M. K. Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai- New Marine Lines, 400013. Mumbai-400020. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1759/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Jt. Commissioner Of Income बिधम/ M/S. Tata Aia Life Tax (Osd)- I/C Dcit, Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Circle-8(3)(1) 14Th Floor, Tower-A, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. Peninsula Business Park, 615, M. K. Road, New Senapati, Bapat Marg, Marine Lines, Mumbai- Lower Parel, Mumbai- 400020. 400013. .

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... judgment of the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED , MUMBAI

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in\nrespect of interest on a government loan under a notification\nissued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act,\n1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary\ncontained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... judgment of the Division Bench in Life\nInsurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that\nthere was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the\nAct of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961\nsince section 44 does not refer to the computation

TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT- 8(3)(1), MUMBAI

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in\nrespect of interest on a government loan under a notification\nissued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act,\n1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary\ncontained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... judgment of the Division Bench in Life\nInsurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that\nthere was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the\nAct of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961\nsince section 44 does not refer to the computation

ACIT-1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HDFC LIFE INUSRANCE COMPANY LIMITED , MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... judgment of the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

ACIT 1(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S HDFC STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE CO. LTD (NOW KNOWN AS HDFC LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD.), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal by the revenue as well as the Cross objection of the assessee for the A

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... judgment of the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

Life Insurance Corporation of India in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits and gains ... Division Bench in CIT v. Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

ACIT-3(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blelife Insurance Corporation Of India V. Dcit – 3(2)(1) Central Office, F&A Department Room No. 608 3Rd Floor, West Wing Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai - 400021 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent Acit – 3(2)(1) V. M/S. Life Insurance Corporation Of India Central Office Room No. 674, 6Th Floor “Yogakshema” Jeevan Bima Marg Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Mumbai - 400020 Pan: Aaacl0582H Appellant Respondent

Life Insurance Corporation of India in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits and gains ... Division Bench in CIT v. Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... Division Bench in CIT v. Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... Division Bench in CIT v. Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation

LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-3(2)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

under section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under section 60. Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in section 8,9,10,12 or 18, the profits ... Division Bench in CIT v. Insurance Corporation (supra), the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with section 44 of the Act of 1961 since section 44 does not refer to the computation