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 1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Sbi Life Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby ordered to be dismissed

ITA 3385/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.3385/Mum/2017 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Dcit 1(3)(1) बिधम/ M/S. Sbi Life Insurance Co. Room No. 540, 5Th Floor, Ltd. Vs. Natraj, 5Th Floor, M.V. Road Aayakar Bhawan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. & Western Express Highway Junction (E), Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400059 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcs2530P (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Dr. Narender Kumar & Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh Assessee By: Shri Farrokh V. Irani/Amruta Lele सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 25/07/2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/08/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 28.02.2017 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -6, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - A.Y.2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Farrokh V. Irani/AmrutaFor Respondent: Dr. Narender Kumar &
Section 10Section 10(34)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 44