BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

64 results for “disallowance”+ Section 115Bclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai64Delhi14Kolkata5Chennai1Indore1SC1

Key Topics

Section 4491Section 115J49Section 143(3)44Section 14A38Disallowance31Addition to Income31Section 1025Section 10(34)23Exemption23Section 80G20Section 26317Deduction12

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

ITA 1759/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19
For Appellant: \nShri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: \nShri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

disallowing\nexemption under section 10(34) with regard to the dividend\nincome earned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) after relying upon\nvarious decisions held that section 14A is not applicable to Life\nInsurance Company. The Tribunal has reiterated the same view\nin the above cases that provisions of section 14A will not apply\nto Insurance companies, whose income

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

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

ITA 1757/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: Disposed
ITAT Mumbai
31 Jan 2024
AY 2018-19
For Respondent: \nShri Madhur Agarwal
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

disallowing\nexemption under section 10(34) with regard to the dividend\nincome earned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) after relying upon\nvarious decisions held that section 14A is not applicable to Life\nInsurance Company. The Tribunal has reiterated the same view\nin the above cases that provisions of section 14A will not apply\nto Insurance companies, whose income

BHUPATI INVESTMENTS & FINANCE P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 5(1)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1134/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amarjit Singhm/S Bhupati Investments Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of & Finance Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax-6 B-34/35, 3Rd Floor, 501, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Paragon Condominium, Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Pandurang Budhkar Road, Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaacb0441P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Aarti Vissanji Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 11.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.10.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (Am): The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Pr. Cit-6, Mumbai, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The A.O U/S 143(3) Of The Act For A.Y. 2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Before Us: “1. The Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Pr. Cit) Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 & Directing The Assessing Officer To Modify The Order Dated 16/12/2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of Income Tax Act, 1961. Your Appellants Submit That The Order Of The Pr. Cit Is Illegal, Bad In Law & Void & The Same Ought To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Aarti VissanjiFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 263

disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r 80(2)(i) to the Book Profits u/s 115B  As per section 115JB Explanation 1 (f) the amount

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 6(2), MUMBAI., MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 2384/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2020-21
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

disallowed.”\n62. After considering the rival submissions, we are of\nthe opinion that the action of the CIT(A) in\ndeleting the amount is consistent with the\naccounting principles followed and the provisions\nof section 44 read with Rule 2 of the 1st\nSchedule. Therefore we uphold the order of the\nCIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised

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

ITA 1897/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

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. .

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das (DR)
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 14ASection 44

disallowing exemption under section 10(34) with regard to the dividend income earned, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) after relying upon various decisions held that section 14A is not applicable to Life Insurance Company. The Tribunal has reiterated the same view in the above cases that provisions of section 14A will not apply to Insurance companies, whose income

ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1)(1), MUMBAIQ vs. M/S KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismis

ITA 2449/MUM/2022[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2022AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Acit-14(1)(1), M/S. Kotak Mahindra Life Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Insurance Company Ltd Bhavan, M.K.Road Vs. 2Nd Floor, 12 Bkc, Mumbai-400020. Bandra Kurla Complex Mumbai-400 051 Pan No. Aaaco3983B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Madhur Agrawal, Adv. Revenue By : Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, Cit Dr : Date Of Hearing 23/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/11/2022

For Appellant: Shri. Madhur Agrawal, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumalti Ghosh, CIT DR
Section 14A

disallowance u/s 14A, of the Act addition for negative reserves of ₹203,23,09,790/ Act addition for negative reserves of 203,23,09,790/- and addition of ₹125,28,23,000/ 125,28,23,000/- as surplus from policy shareholders policy shareholders account under the head ‘income from other business activity’. In account under the head ‘income from other

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CIR 6(1), MUMBAI

ITA 384/MUM/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 384/Mum/2015 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13)

For Appellant: Ms. Arati Vissanji, ARFor Respondent: Shri Awangshi Gimson
Section 10Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 44

disallowance under section 14A of the Act. 12) The CIT (A) erred in applying the normal corporate rate of tax instead of rate specified in Section 115B

ADITYA BIRLA SUNLIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. CIT (A) 54, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1828/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Ltd., (A) – 54, 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One World Mumbai Vs. Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aditya Birla Sunlife Tax – Central Circle – 5(3), Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One Vs. World Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ronak Doshi, Ca Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 37(1)Section 44Section 69C

disallowance has been made only on account of assessee not furnishing the copies of agreements entered into by the assessee with the commission agents and reconciliation of the amounts appearing in profit and loss accounts and bank accounts for which the assessee was constrained owing to huge volume of 45,566 commission agents. 14.4. In light of these facts

DCIT-CC-5(3), MUMBAI, AIR INDIA, NARIMAN POINT vs. ADITYA BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and that of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 3044/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2021-22 Aditya Birla Sunlife Insurance Commissioner Of Income Tax Company Ltd., (A) – 54, 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One World Mumbai Vs. Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2021-22 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Aditya Birla Sunlife Tax – Central Circle – 5(3), Insurance Company Ltd., Mumbai 16Th Floor, Tower 1, One Vs. World Centre, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai – 400013 (Pan : Aabcb4623J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Shri Ronak Doshi, Ca Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 234ASection 234BSection 37(1)Section 44Section 69C

disallowance has been made only on account of assessee not furnishing the copies of agreements entered into by the assessee with the commission agents and reconciliation of the amounts appearing in profit and loss accounts and bank accounts for which the assessee was constrained owing to huge volume of 45,566 commission agents. 14.4. In light of these facts

DCIT, MUMBAI vs. ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED, MUMBAI

Accordingly, both the appeals preferred by the Revenue are\ndismissed

ITA 3003/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Dec 2024AY 2021-22
Section 10Section 10(15)Section 10(34)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 14ASection 28Section 44

disallowed.”\n62. After considering the rival submissions, we are of\nthe opinion that the action of the CIT(A) in\ndeleting the amount is consistent with the\naccounting principles followed and the provisions\nof section 44 read with Rule 2 of the 1st\nSchedule. Therefore we uphold the order of the\nCIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised

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

ITA 1848/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2018-2019

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

Section 10Section 14ASection 44

section 115B. Therefore respectfully following the above, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). 11 ITsA1775 & 1848/Mum/2023 HDFC Life Insurance Co Ltd 11. The next issue contended is the disallowance

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

ITA 1775/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 10Section 14ASection 44

section 115B. Therefore respectfully following the above, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). 11 ITsA1775 & 1848/Mum/2023 HDFC Life Insurance Co Ltd 11. The next issue contended is the disallowance

TATA AIA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMM. OF INCOME TAX,RANE-8, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1285/MUM/2022[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2022AY 2017-2018
Section 115Section 143(3)Section 253Section 263Section 44

disallow the exemptions claimed u/s 10(34) and u/s 10(23AAB) of the Act. The ld. AO also mentioned in the order that in case if it is held in the appellate proceedings that the above exemptions are available to assessee, then the provisions of section 14A of the Act shall apply. 3.3. Aggrieved by the Order passed

DCIT 14(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. KOTAK MAHINDRA OLD MUTUAL LIFE INSURNCE LTD, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3210/MUM/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vikas Awasthyआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 3210/Mum/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14) The Dy. Commissioner Of Income M/S Kotak Mahindra Old Tax, Central Circle-14(2)(1), Mutual Life Insurance Ltd. 4Th Mumbai Floor, Vinay Bhavya बनाम/ Room No. 432, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Complex, 159A, Cst Road, Bhavan, M.K. Road, Marine Lines, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Vs. Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 098 (अपीलाथ" / Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaaco3983B

For Appellant: Shri Neehar Pandey, DRFor Respondent: Shri Farokh V. Irani, AR
Section 14ASection 44

disallowances for identical reasons in the preceding assessment years starting from AY M/s Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life Insurance Ltd.; AY 13-14 2007-08 to AY 2012-13 and the same have been decided in favour of the assessee. The learned AR for the assessee contended that the facts in the impugned assessment year are identical to the facts

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

ITA 1717/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

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

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G to tune of Rs.5,00,00,000 8. erred in denying the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000 (being 50% of Rs. 10,00,00,000, which is the amount actually paid); 9. ought to have appreciated that the appellant had fulfilled

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

ITA 1715/MUM/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

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

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G to tune of Rs.5,00,00,000 8. erred in denying the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000 (being 50% of Rs. 10,00,00,000, which is the amount actually paid); 9. ought to have appreciated that the appellant had fulfilled

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

ITA 1716/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

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

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G to tune of Rs.5,00,00,000 8. erred in denying the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act amounting to Rs. 5,00,00,000 (being 50% of Rs. 10,00,00,000, which is the amount actually paid); 9. ought to have appreciated that the appellant had fulfilled

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

ITA 1714/MUM/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

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

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G to tune of Rs.5,00,00,000 8. erred in denying the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act amounting to Rs 5,00,00,000 (being 50% of Rs.10,00,00,000, which is the amount actually paid). 9. ought to have appreciated that the appellant had fulfilled

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

ITA 1710/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

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

Section 115Section 44Section 80G

Disallowance of claim of deduction under section 80G to tune of Rs.5,00,00,000 8. erred in denying the claim of deduction under section 80G of the Act amounting to Rs 5,00,00,000 (being 50% of Rs.10,00,00,000, which is the amount actually paid). 9. ought to have appreciated that the appellant had fulfilled

AYM SYNTEX LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD.),MUMBAI vs. DCIT- CC- 3(4), MUMBAI

ITA 2342/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Aym Syntex Ltd. (Formerly Dcit-Central Circel-3(3), Known As M/S Welspun Syntex Ltd.), Air India Building Nariman 9Th Floor, B Wing, Trade World, Vs. Point, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400013. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Asst. Cit Cc-3(3), Central Range-3, M/S Aym Syntex Ltd., Room No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air India 9Th Floor Trade World, Senapati Building, Nariman Point, Vs. Bapat Marg, Kmala Mills Mumbai-400021. Compound, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400011. Pan No. Aaacw 0489 L Appellant Respondent

Section 14A

disallowed the claim of the assessee on merit observing as under: on merit observing as under: 8.21 Without prejudice to the above, the matter is examined on 8.21 Without prejudice to the above, the matter is examined on 8.21 Without prejudice to the above, the matter is examined on merits. The issue of adjustments which can be made