IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1432/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2020-21) ITA No.1450/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2018-19)

Tata AIG General Insurance vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Company Ltd. Tax C.C.-6(2), Mumbai

15^th Floor Tower A Peninsula Room No.1903, AIR India Building, Business Park G.K. Marg Lower Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Prel Mumbai-400013 PAN: AABCT3518Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA No.2398/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2020-21) ITA No.2403/Mum/2024 (Assessment year: 2018-19)

Deputy Commissioner of vs Tata AIG General Insurance Income Tax C.C.-6(2), Mumbai Company Ltd.

Room No.1903, AIR India 15^th Floor Tower A Peninsula Building, Nariman Point, Business Park G.K. Marg Lower Prel Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400013 PAN: AABCT3518Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Madhur Agrawal Revenue by : Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Date of hearing : 21/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2026 O R D E R Per Bench :

A bunch of appeal filed by the assessee and revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-54, Mumbai [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2018-19 and 2020-21, date of order 02.02.2024 and 05.02.2024 respectively The impugned orders emanated from the order of the Ld. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax C.-8(3)(1),Mumbai (for brevity the ‘Ld. AO’) order passed under section 143(3)/260 of the Act date of order 20.05.2022 for A.Y. 2018-19 and orders passed by Assessment Unit Income-tax Department u/sec. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B date of order 29.09.2022 for A.Y. 2020-21.

2. Since all the appeals pertain to the same assessee, involving similar issues arising out of a 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 for the A.Y. 2018-19, assessee’s appeal ITA No. 1450/Mum/2024 and revenue’s appeal ITA No. 2403/Mum/2024 are treated as a lead case, and the decision rendered therein shall apply mutatis mutandis to other appeals before us.

ITA No.1450/Mum/2024 (Assessee’s appeal, AY 2018-19)

3. The assessee has taken the following grounds:

“1. The learned CIT(A) has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in not allowing deduction to the extent of Rs 2,81,64,694 out of the total deduction of Rs 37,59,52,195 claimed by the Appellant on account of reversal of reserve for unexpired risk ('UEPR') made during the year under consideration, by holding that the reversal of Rs 2,81,64,694 pertaining to the UEPR disallowed in the previous year other than the immediately preceding year, which in the instant case is AY 2015-16, is not allowable as a deduction in light of proviso to Rule 6E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962

2. The learned CIT(A) has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action of the learned AO of denying exemption under section 10(38) of the Act claimed by the Appellant with respect to long-term capital gains amounting to Rs 29,20,85,189 arising on sale of equity shares.

3. The learned CIT(A) has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in taxing the profit on sale of investments as "Business Income" and not as "Capital Gains".

4. Without prejudice to Ground number 3 above, the learned CIT(A) has, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in not taxing the profit on sale of investments by applying the tax rate provided under section 111A of the Act and section 112 of the Act on short term gains and long term gains, respectively.

5. The learned CIT(A), on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in not allowing deduction of Rs 16,37,818 towards rent equalisation adjustment r