Yamini Arjan Bharwani vs. Income Tax Officer

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

This appeal arises from an order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 02.01.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. The Assessing Officer (AO) made two additions: Rs. 16,00,000/- for alleged unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period and Rs. 16,01,284/- by denying the exemption under section 10(10D) of the Act for the maturity amount of an insurance policy. The assessee approached the Learned CIT(A), who partially allowed the appeal by accepting the explanation for the cash deposit but upheld the denial of exemption under section 10(10D). Aggrieved by this, the assessee filed an appeal with the ITAT, arguing that the exemption should have been granted as the policy was surrendered after the 5-year lock-in period.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in denying the exemption under section 10(10D) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Harsimron Singh Sandhu vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengalore

  Delhi Bench 'B', New Delhi benchAY 2017-18Dismissed

• Triveni Devi Bhutra Vs. ITO, Ward-61(4), Kolkata

  Kolkata 'SMC' Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• M/s. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. The DCIT, Large Taxpayer Unit, Chennai

• Arjunsinh Rana vs. ITO

  Ahmedabad bench

• Sri Guru Thipperudraswamy Devasthana vs. The Income Tax Officer

• AMIT GOYAL HUF, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER