DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

44, the assessee could not take its income outside the purview of taxation assessee could not take its income outside the purview of taxation assessee could not take its income outside the purview of taxation ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., by claiming exemptions under section 10. It was also noted that

DCIT CEN 5 3, MUMBAI vs. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are allowed partly

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan ()

44, the assessee could not take its income outside the purview of taxation assessee could not take its income outside the purview of taxation assessee could not take its income outside the purview of taxation ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., by claiming exemptions under section 10. It was also noted that

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

Depreciation) 7,85,212 A. Total income under the head Income from Business and Profession 1589,77,69,978 B. Income from other sources 577,04,87,000 C. Surplus in shareholders account 2166,82,56,978 Total Assessed Income (Rounded off) 21,66,82,56,980 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) which

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

Depreciation) 7,85,212 A. Total income under the head Income from Business and Profession 1589,77,69,978 B. Income from other sources 577,04,87,000 C. Surplus in shareholders account 2166,82,56,978 Total Assessed Income (Rounded off) 21,66,82,56,980 5. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred the appeal before the CIT(A) which

TATA COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the question of law referred to the Special Bench is answered in favour of the assessee

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Arun Khodpiatata Communications Limited Pr. Cit, Videsh Sanchar Bhavan, Mumbai-1 Vs. M. G. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacv 2808 C (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri J. D. Mistri Respondent By : Shri Ritesh Misra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.09.2025 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal, At The Instance Of The Assessee, Assails Order Dated 21.03.2025, Passed U/S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short), By Learned Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (‘Ld. Pcit’ For Short), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised Multiple Grounds, Both On Jurisdictional Issues As Well As On Merits, However, There Is Consensus Between The Parties That The Appeal Can Be Decided On Merits, In Which Event, There Is No Need To Go Into Various Other Issues Raised In Appeal.

44. Accordingly, we hold that capital gains arising out of the depreciable asset u/s 50 even though deem to be capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital asset, that fiction has to be confined only to section

SAMIR NARAIN BHOJWANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 4(2)(1), MUMBAI

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

44. Accordingly, we hold that capital gains arising out of the depreciable asset u/s 50 even though deem to be capital gain arising from transfer of a short term capital asset, that fiction has to be confined only to section

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

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

depreciation has been claimed on these assets. Taxation of Life Insurance is presumptive taxation with only the surplus as disclosed by Form I being subjected to tax. In my view, as per the provisions of law only those adjustments which are expressly not prohibited under section 44