##PAGE1##

1

ITA No.5394 /Mum/2025

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited

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

ITA No.5394 /Mum/2025

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited

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

3

ITA No.5394 /Mum/2025

Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited

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.