INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.5394 /Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

DCIT, CC-6(2), Mumbai vs TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE BKC, Mumbai-400 051 COMPANY LIMITED, 15^th Floor, Tower A Peninsula Business Park, G.K. Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 PAN : AABCT3518Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Present for Assessee Shri Mittul Jasolia Present for Revenue Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR Date of hearing 18/12/2025 Date if pronouncement 23/12/2025 O R D E R Per: Shri Anikesh Banerjee, JM:

The instant appeal of the revenue was filed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal)-54, Mumbai [in short, ‘Ld.CIT(A)] passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment year 2013-14, date of order 28/01/2025. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Learned Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax-8(3)(1), Mumbai (in short, ‘Ld.AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, date of order 21/12/2016.

2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“i. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the co-insurance administration fees amounting to Rs.79,22,532/-, which is an eligible amount for deducting TDS as per the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, as the Act.

ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the amount of Rs.13,14,782/- towards purchase of pen drives, laptop adapters, cables, batteries, hard disks, etc., which are capital in nature.

iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in allowing the bonus offered to tax in earlier year and paid during the year amounting to Rs.1,50,81,991/- as per the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act.

iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing write back of excess provision for expenses disallowed in earlier year amounting to Rs. 5,78,07,194/- as per the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act.

v. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing expenses disallowed in earlier year amounting to Rs.35,28,707/ as per the provisions of section 30 to 43B of the Act.

vi. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing dividend income claimed as exempt u/s. 10(34) of the Act amounting to Rs.86,91,042/- and has failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of section 44 of the Act read with Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule is a disabling provision and not an enabling provision?

vii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the subsequent effect after allowing exempt income u/s. 10(34) of the Act amounting to Rs.86,91,042/-, by the Appellate Authorities, warrants disallowance need to be worked out by invoking the provisions of section 14A read with rule 8D of the Act.

viii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing dividend income claimed as exempt u/s. 10(15)(iv)(h) of the Act amounting to Rs.15, 15,24,995/- and has failed to appreciate the fact that the provisions of section 44 of the Act read with Rule 5(a)

of the First Schedule is a disabling provision and not an enabling provision.

ix. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing depreciation u/s.32 of the Act amounting to Rs. 13,29,65,208/-.

x. The appellant craves leave, to add, amend and/ or alter any of the ground of appeal.”

3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee has filed the return declaring total income at Rs. 131,25,67,420/-. Further, the assessee revised the returned & income wa