Section 44 of the Income Tax Act

The decision most relied on for Section 44 is Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen (73 ITR 53), cited in 276 of the 64 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 44

Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen
73 ITR 53 · 1969 · Supreme Court
276
citing judgments

Provisions for liabilities, when made on a scientific and rational basis, are allowable as a deduction under the mercantile system of accounting, even if their actual quantification and discharge are deferred to a future date.

Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT
156 ITR 585 · 1985 · Supreme Court
119
citing judgments

A liability for gratuity, even if actuarially valued and claimed as ascertained, is deductible under Section 37 only for amounts actually paid, especially when no formal provision for the amount has been made.

LIC of India v. CIT
51 ITR 773 · 1964 · Supreme Court
64
citing judgments

The assessment of profits for an insurance business is exclusively governed by the specific rules prescribed in the First Schedule to the Income Tax Act and Section 44, thereby precluding the Assessing Officer from applying general computation provisions, such as sections 28 to 43B, disallowances under Section 14A, or making adjustments outside these specific statutory rules.

DCIT v. National Insurance Co.Ltd.
72 Taxmann.com 116 · 2016 · ITAT
53
citing judgments

Depreciation on software is an allowable deduction for insurance companies, and any addition made by the Assessing Officer disallowing such claim should be deleted.

CIT v. Vinitec Corporation (P) Ltd.
278 ITR 337 · 2005 · High Court
51
citing judgments

A provision for warranty liability, even if quantified on an estimated basis, is considered a definite and certain business liability, qualifying for deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, and is not a contingent liability.

Sundaram Asset Management Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
145 ITD 17 · 2013 · ITAT
42
citing judgments

An Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS) is considered an integral part of a computer and is eligible for depreciation at a rate of 60%.

24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das
54 Taxmann 499 · 1991 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments

The Income Tax Act provisions prevail over accounting principles for computing taxable income, and each assessment year is a self-contained unit. Income cannot be shifted between assessment years.

Insurance Co.Ltd. v. DCIT
102 Taxmann.com 292 · 2019 · High Court
33
citing judgments

The Madras High Court considered the admissibility of additional evidence, including agreements between an appellant and Non-Resident Insurers and details of premium ceded, during appeal proceedings.

Life Insurance Corporation of India v. CIT
115 ITR 45 · 1978 · High Court
30
citing judgments

The assessment of profits for insurance companies is governed by specific rules within schedules, and the Assessing Officer (AO) cannot make adjustments if Section 44 has been invoked. Insurance businesses may be entitled to exemptions under Section 10(15) even when Section 44 applies, as Section 44 does not exclude such claims.

M/s.Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. ACIT
38 DTR 282 · 2010 · Reported
26
citing judgments

Section 14A of the Income-tax Act is not applicable to insurance businesses governed by specific provisions of Section 44 and Schedule 1. Profit on sale of investments by insurance companies is not taxable, especially after the deletion of sub-rule (b) of Rule 5 of the First Schedule.

Judgments on Section 44

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

In the result, the appeals for AY 2014-15, 2016-17 & 2017-18 are partly allowed and appeals for AY 2015-16 & 2017-18 (in ITA No

ITA 182/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.1759/Chny/2019, 182 & 183/Chny/2021, 430/Chny/2022 & 683/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of O/O The Chief Manager, Cfac Income Tax – 3, Department, Head Office, United India Chennai 600 034. Nalanda, Door No. 19, Ground Floor, 4Th Lane, Utamar Gandhi Salai, Chennai 600 034. [Pan:Aaacu5552C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sundararaman, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel (Virtual) सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 07.10.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: The Appeal In Ita No. 1759/Chny/2019 Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.03.2019 Passed By The Ld. Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Chennai For The Assessment Year 2014- 15. The Appeals In Ita No. 182 & 183/Chny/2021 Are Filed By The Assessee Against Different Orders Both Dated 28.03.2021 Passed By The Ld. Pcit-3, Chennai For The Assessment 2015-16 & 2016-17. The 2

For Appellant: Shri S. Sundararaman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. V. Pushpa, Sr. Standing Counsel
Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 44

Showing 120 of 64 · Page 1 of 4