Section 44 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: s.55

Section 44 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 55 (Insurance business) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 55 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

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 223 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

A provision for gratuity liability, calculated on an actuarial basis and spread over a number of years, is an allowable business expense. Such a provision is considered a charge against profits rather than a reserve.

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

A provision made for Unclaimed Prior Revenue (UPR) is not an item to be added back to book profit under Explanation 1 to section 115JB(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

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

A UPS is an integral part of a computer and is eligible for depreciation at 60%.

24 ITR 506 (SO, ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das
54 Taxmann 499 · 1991 · Supreme Court
36
citing judgments
Insurance Co.Ltd. v. DCIT
102 Taxmann.com 292 · 2019 · High Court
33
citing judgments

Reinsurance premium payments made to non-resident reinsurers are deductible business expenses, and disallowance on this ground is unsustainable.

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

DCIT, Circle- 1, Ltu, New Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal dated 09

ITA 5834/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Sept 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Circle-1, Ltu, A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaact0627R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarandeep Singh, Ca & Shri Pulkit Verma, Advocate Revenue By : Shri H.K. Chaudhary, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.09.2021 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th June, 2018 Of The Cit(A)-22, New Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Ground Of Appeal No.1 Raised By The Revenue Reads As Under:- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.25,85,81,755/- Made By The Ao U/S 14A Of The I.T. Act.” 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Public Sector Undertaking Of Government Of India & Is In The Business Of Non-Life Insurance. It Filed Its Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Under Normal Provisions Of The Income-Tax Act At A Loss Of Rs.186,97,30,289/- & Book Profit U/S 115Jb I.E., Mat Scheme Of Rs.565,63,58,876/-. During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Has Claimed The Following Income As Exempt:- S. No. Particulars Amount ( □) 1. Interest On Tax Free Public Sector Bonds Exempt Under 4,59,58,525/- Section 10 (15) (Iv) (H) Of The Act 2,04,22,38,227/- 2. Dividend Exempt U/S 10(34) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Total 2,08,81,96,752/-

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CA &For Respondent: Shri H.K. Chaudhary, CIT, DR
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 115JSection 14ASection 44