IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.1392/MUM/2023 ITA No.4208/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year 2015-16) (Assessment Year 2018-19)

ITA No.1427/MUM/2023 ITA No.4185/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year 2016-17) (Assessment Year 2019-20)

ITA No.1428/MUM/2023 ITA No.4247/MUM/2023 (Assessment Year 2017-18) (Assessment Year 2020-21)

DCIT – 1(3)(1), Room No.535, 5^th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400020 v/s M/s. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Andheri East – 400069, ……………… Respondent PAN : AAFCS2530P Assessee by : Shri Farooq Irani Ms. Amruta Lele Revenue by : Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT-DR Date of Hearing – 25/02/2025 Date of Order - 05/05/2025

O R D E R

PER BENCH The present batch of appeals have been filed by the Revenue against the separate impugned orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), for the assessment years 2015-16 to 2020-21.

2. Since the present appeals pertain to the same assessee, raising similar issues arising out of the similar factual matrix, these appeals were heard together as a matter of convenience and are being decided by way of this consolidated order. With the consent of the parties, the appeal by the Revenue for the assessment year 2015-16 is considered as a lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals filed by the Revenue.

3. In its appeal for assessment year 2015-16, the Revenue has raised the following grounds: -

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in concluding that transfer from Shareholder's account to Policy Account And Shown As Part Of 'surplus' in the actuarial valuation was only transfer of capital asset and not taxable u/s 44 of the Act read with Rule

2 of the First Schedule?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in allowing relief to the assessee by holding that 'surplus' available both in Policy Holders Account and Share Holder's account is to be consolidated and only 'net surplus' is to be taxed as income from Insurance Business?

3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in upholding the claim of the assessee that its dividend income is exempt under section 10(34) of the I.T. Act 1961.

4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the claim of the assessee that its dividend income is exempt under section 10(34) of the I. T. Act 1961 made by the assessee, ignoring the fact that dividend income is considered as part of income of the Life Insurance Business and is included as an income by the actuary

5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Rs. 22,70,75,637/- case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made by the AO on the exemption of income from pension fund u/s 10(23AAB) and that the income from Pension Fund does not form part of the total income of the Assessee u/s 10(23AAB) of the I.T. Act 1961?

6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in allowing exemption of the interest on Tax Free Bonds Rs. 3,79,43,965/-amounting to Rs. 11,16,32,729/- without appreciating that Sec 10 of the I T Act is not applicable to Insurance business?"

7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the --case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) was justified in ignoring the fact that the non obstante clause is not extended to section 10(23AAB) of the I. T. Act 1961 in view of the fact that section 10 and all its subsections are not non obstante?

8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in failing to appreciate