DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Act. 55 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 57. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that for the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Act. 55 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 57. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that for the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10

CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Act. 55 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 57. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that for the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Act. 55 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 57. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that for the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. CHOLAMANDALAM MS GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1674, 1675, 1759 & 1676/Chny/2011 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04, 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.40/Chny/2009 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1366/Chny/2013 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2372/Chny/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S Cholamandalam Ms General Income Tax, V. Insurance Co. Ltd., Dare House, No.2, The Assistant Commissioner Of Nsc Bose Road, Income Tax. Chennai - 600 001. Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai - 600 101. Pan : Aabcc 6633 K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

disallowance of exemption under Section 10(23G) of the Act. 55 I.T.A. Nos.1674 to 1676 & 1759/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.40/Chny/09 I.T.A. Nos.1366 & 1350/Chny/13 I.T.A. Nos.2372 & 2276/Chny/14 I.T.A. Nos.1618 to 1621/Chny/11 I.T.A. No.2146/Chny/08 57. Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, submitted that for the assessment year 2006-07, the assessee claimed exemption under Section 10

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT, CHENNAI

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42. Ground Nos. 2

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

M/S. ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

In the result, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George

2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938 is not applicable to the assessee. 6. Shri Percy J. Pardiwala, the Ld. Sr. counsel for the assessee, further submitted that Section 2C of Insurance Act, 1938 in categorical terms says that only an Indian re-insurance company holding a valid license for dealing in insurance business can operate 8 I.T.A. Nos.1622

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3, CHENNAI

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround Nos. 2

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD,CHENNAI vs. PCIT-3,, CHENNAI

10(38) of the Act as well as section 14A of the\nAct vide question No. 12(1) and dealt the issue extensively. The reasons\nrecorded by us in the aforementioned paragraphs are equally applicable\nto the present issue for AY 2017-18. Thus, ground Nos. 2 (a) along with 3\nto 7 are allowed.\n42.\nGround Nos. 2