{"id":1154,"date":"1999-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999"},"modified":"2017-07-23T16:39:54","modified_gmt":"2017-07-23T11:09:54","slug":"general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999","title":{"rendered":"General Insurance Corporation Of … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 21 September, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
General Insurance Corporation Of … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 21 September, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: R.C. Lahoti<\/div>\n
Bench: S.Rajendra R.C.Lahoti<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nGENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA .\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t21\/09\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS.Rajendra R.C.Lahoti\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
      R.C.  LAHOTI, J<\/p>\n
      General  Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant\n<\/p>\n
– assessee is 100 % Central Government Undertaking formed as
\na  Government Company under The General Insurance Business (
\nNationalisation)  Act,\t1972  ( hereinafter G I B  Act,\t for
\nshort ).  It carries on general insurance business in India.
\nAt  the\t time of nationalisation, there were  107  companies
\ncarrying  on  the business of general insurance.  They\twere
\nall  merged together into four subsidiaries of the appellant
\nCorporation viz.  National Insurance Co.  Limited, New India
\nAssurance Co.  Limited, Oriental Insurance Co.\tLimited, and
\nUnited India Insurance Co.  Limited.  The Central Government
\ncontributed  to the capital of the appellant in the form  of
\npreference  shares  and\t equity shares for  the\t purpose  of
\npaying\tcompensation to the shareholders and the  management
\nof  the merged companies.  The preference shares were to  be
\nredeemed  in  such  time as the Board of  Directors  of\t the
\nappellant Corporation may deem fit.  The controversy relates
\nto  the\t assessment  year   1977-78,  corresponding  to\t the
\naccounting  year ending 31.12.1976.  It is not disputed that
\nthe income of the appellant assessee is to be computed under
\nRule 5 of First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
      The Income-tax Act, 1961 makes a special provision for
\ncomputing  the\ttaxable\t income of an  assessee\t engaged  in
\nbusiness of insurance.\tIt provides as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      Insurance business<\/p>\n
      44.    “Notwithstanding  anything\t to   the   contrary
\ncontained  in  the  provisions of this Act relating  to\t the
\ncomputation  of income chargeable under the head ”  Interest
\non  securities,”  ”  Income from house\tproperty”,  “Capital
\ngains”\tor “Income from other sources”, or in section 199 or
\nin  sections  28  to  [43 A] the profits and  gains  of\t any
\nbusiness  of insurance, including any such business  carried
\non  by\ta  mutual  insurance company or\t by  a\tco-operative
\nsociety,  shall\t be  computed in accordance with  the  rules
\ncontained in the First Schedule.”\n<\/p>\n
      Inasmuch\tas  the\t appellant  –  assessee\t carries  on
\nbusiness  of  insurance\t other than life insurance,  we\t are
\nconcerned  with Rule 5 of the First Schedule which reads  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
      B- Other insurance business<\/p>\n
      Computation  of  profits and gains of other  insurance
\nbusiness.\n<\/p>\n
      5.  The profits and gains of any business of insurance
\nother  than life insurance shall be taken to be the  balance
\nof  the profits disclosed by the annual accounts, copies  of
\nwhich  are  required  under the Insurance Act, 1938 (  4  of
\n1938),\tto  be\tfurnished to the  Controller  of  Insurance,
\nsubject to the following adjustments:-\n<\/p>\n
      (a)  subject to the other provisions of this rule, any
\nexpenditure  or allowance which is not admissible under\t the
\nprovisions of sections 30 to [43 A] in computing the profits
\nand gains of a business shall be added back;\n<\/p>\n
      (b) xxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
      (c)  such\t amount\t carried  over\t to  a\treserve\t for
\nunexpired risks as may be prescribed in this behalf shall be
\nallowed as a deduction.\n<\/p>\n
      [\t Note:- Sec.  44 and Rule 5 (a) of First Schedule as
\nreproduced  hereinabove\t are as they stood at  the  relevant
\ntime.  Later by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act 1987 `43
\nB’  has\t been  substituted in place of `43 A’  in  both\t the
\nprovisions]<\/p>\n
      The  problem  is\tcreated\t by Rule 2 (2)\t(a)  of\t the
\nGeneral\t Insurance  Business  (Nationalisation)\t Rules\t1973
\n(hereinafter  G I B Rules, for short) framed by the  Central
\nGovernment in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 39
\nof the G I B Act, the relevant part whereof reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
      “39.  (1) The Central Government may, by Notification,
\nmake rules to carry out the provisions of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  In  particular,  and\t without  prejudice  to\t the
\ngenerality  of\tthe foregoing power, rules made\t under\tthis
\nSection may provide for :-\n<\/p>\n
      (a) the manner in which the profits, if any, and other
\nmoneys received by the Corporation may be dealt with.”\n<\/p>\n
      xxx xxx xxx xxx<\/p>\n
      Rule 2 (2) (a) referred to hereinabove reads as under:<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      “2.   Profits  and  receipts of  the  Corporation\t and
\nacquiring companies how to be dealt with —\n<\/p>\n
      …..  …..  ….\n<\/p>\n
      (2)  (a)\tIn  arriving  at   the\tnet  profit  of\t the
\nCorporation,   the  amount  set\t  apart\t for  redemption  of
\npreference  shares to such extent as the Board of  Directors
\nof  the Corporation may consider expedient shall be  treated
\nas an item of expenditure in the Profit and Loss Account.”\n<\/p>\n
      In Profit and Loss Account, the appellant assessee had
\nmade  a\t debit entry for an amount of  Rs.3,00,30,700\/-\t and
\ntransferred   the  amount  to\tpreference   share   capital
\nredemption  account.  The Income-tax Officer added back\t the
\namount\tto the income of the assessee on the reasoning\tthat
\nthis amount was to be treated as revenue expenditure in view
\nof  Rule 2 (2) (a) of G I B Rules.  The assessee appealed to
\nthe Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)
\nwho agreed with the assessee and deleted the addition in the
\nincome\tfollowing his own order on a similar claim made\t for
\nthe assessment year 1976-77.  The department appealed to the
\nIncome\tTax  Appellate Tribunal.  The Tribunal followed\t its
\nown  order dated 26.9.1978 in respect of this very  assessee
\nfor the assessment year 1974-75 and dismissed the appeal.  A
\nperusal\t of  the order of the Tribunal ( Annexure P-3 )\t for
\nthe assessment year 1974-75 shows that in the opinion of the
\nTribunal  the  amount  set apart as a reserve could  not  be
\ntreated as expenditure or allowance and assuming it to be an
\namount\tof  expenditure, it was not an item  of\t expenditure
\ndealt  with  by the provisions of Sections 30 to 43A of\t the
\nIncome-tax  Act.  Accordingly, the claim of the assessee was
\nliable to be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
      On  a  request  made  by the  Revenue,  the  following
\nquestion was referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of the
\nHigh Court under Section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act:-\n<\/p>\n
      “Whether\ton the facts and in the circumstances of the
\ncase  the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that\t the
\nsum  of\t Rs.3,00,30,700\/- being provision for redemption  of
\npreference  shares  was not liable to be added back  in\t the
\ntotal  income of the assessee for the assessment year  1977-
\n78”.   The  High  Court\t has answered the  question  in\t the
\nnegative,  that is, in favour of the Revenue.  In doing\t so,
\nthe  High  Court  has  purported to treat  the\tquestion  as
\ncovered\t by  two decisions of the Supreme Court in  Anarkali
\nSarabhai vs.  C.I.T (1997) 224 ITR 422, Associated Power Co.
\nLtd.   vs.   C.I.T.  ( 1996) 218 ITR 195, and a decision  of
\nthe  Bombay  High  Court  in  Colaba  Central\tCo-operative
\nConsumers’  Wholesale  and Retail Stores Ltd.\tvs.   C.I.T.
\n(1998) 229 ITR 209 Bom.\n<\/p>\n
      The  aggrieved  assessee\thas  filed  this  appeal  by
\nspecial\t leave granted under Article 136 of the Constitution
\nof India.\n<\/p>\n
      We  have heard Shri T.R.\tAndhyarujina, learned senior
\nadvocate   for\tthe  assessee  –  appellant  and  Shri\tT.L.
\nViswanatha  Iyer,  learned senior advocate for the  Revenue.
\nHaving\theard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of
\nthe opinion that the appeal deserves to be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
      Section  44  of  the  Income-tax\t Act  is  a  special
\nprovision  governing  computation of taxable  income  earned
\nfrom  business\tof insurance.  It opens with a\tnon-obstante
\nclause\tand  thus  has\tan   overriding\t effect\t over  other
\nprovisions  contained in the Act.  It mandates the assessing
\nauthorities  to\t compute the taxable income for business  of
\ninsurance  in  accordance with the provisions of  the  First
\nSchedule.   A  plain  reading  of Rule\t5(a)  of  the  First
\nSchedule  makes\t it  clear  that in  order  to\tattract\t the
\napplicability  of  the\tsaid  provision\t the  amount  should
\nfirstly be an expenditure or allowance.\t Secondly, it should
\nbe one not admissible under the provisions of Sections 30 to
\n43A.   If the amount is not an expenditure or allowance, the
\nquestion  of  testing  its  eligibility\t for  adjustment  by
\nreference  to  Rule  5 (a) to the First Schedule  would\t not
\narise at all.  A perusal of the order dated 26.9.1978 passed
\nin  ITA No.2699\/1977-78 by the ITAT in the case of this very
\nassessee  and  relied on and followed by the Tribunal  while
\ndisposing  of the appeal for the assessment year in question
\n(AY  1977-78)  shows three submissions having been  made  on
\nbehalf\tof the assessee before the Tribunal:  firstly,\tthat
\nthe  amount  set  apart by the assessee\t for  redemption  of
\npreference  shares was only a reserve or a provision and not
\nan  expenditure and therefore its allowability for deduction
\ncannot\tbe  considered under Sections 30 to 43A;   secondly,
\nassuming  it was an expenditure, this expenditure was not of
\nthe  category of expenditure contemplated in Sections 30  to
\n43A  and  therefore unless there was a specific\t prohibition
\nfor  such  an allowance, the departmental authorities  would
\nnot  be\t justified  in\tadding back the\t amount\t under\tthat
\nclause;\t  and  thirdly,\t if  Rule  2(2)(a)  of\tthe  General
\nInsurance  Business (Nationalisation) Rules, 1973 be read as
\nproviding  that\t the amount so set apart for  redemption  of
\npreference  shares was an expenditure, the fiction should be
\ntaken  to  its\tlogical conclusion so as to  hold  that\t the
\nexpenditure  was allowable as deduction under Sections 30 to
\n43A  of\t the  Income-tax  Act.\t  The  Tribunal\t upheld\t the
\ncontention  that  the  provision made by  the  assessee\t was
\nneither\t an  expenditure  nor an allowance in  the  ordinary
\ncommercial sense and Rule 5 (a) of First Schedule would have
\nno application at all and further, as admittedly Sections 30
\nto  43A do not deal with an amount set apart for  redemption
\nof  preference shares so also the amount could not have been
\nadded back.\n<\/p>\n
      The  term\t `expenditure’ came up for consideration  of
\nthis  Court  in\t Indian\t Molasses Company  Pvt.\t  Ltd.\t Vs.
\nCommissioner of Income-tax 1959 (37) ITR 66.  It was held :-\n<\/p>\n
      “”Spending”  in  the sense of “paying out or away”  of
\nmoney\tis   the    primary    meaning\t of   “expenditure”.
\n“Expenditure”  is what is paid out or away and is  something
\nwhich\tis  gone  irretrievably.    Expenditure,  which\t  is
\ndeductible for income- tax purposes, is one which is towards
\na  liability actually existing at the time, but the  putting
\naside of money which may become expenditure on the happening
\nof an event is not expenditure.”\n<\/p>\n
      In  Pandyan Insurance Co.Ltd.  Vs.  CIT Madras  (1965)
\n55 ITR 716 also this Court has held that “expenditure” meant
\n“disbursement” and hence did not include depreciation.\n<\/p>\n
      It is therefore clear that the sum of Rs.3,00,30,700\/-
\nset  apart as provision for redemption of preference  shares
\ncould  not have been treated as an expenditure.\t It is\talso
\nnot  an\t expenditure or allowance of the nature\t covered  by
\nSections  30  to  43A  of the  Income-tax  Act,\t 1961.\t The
\nquestion  of  determining its admissibility by reference  to
\nRule  5\t (a) of First Schedule to the Income-tax  Act,\t1961
\ndoes  not  arise  nor could it have been added back  by\t the
\nassessing  authority  by purporting to exercise power  under
\nthe  said  Rule.   Rule 2 (2) (a) of GIB  Rules\t undoubtedly
\nspeaks\tof the amount set apart for redemption of preference
\nshares being treated as an item of expenditure in the profit
\nand  loss  account.  However, the purpose and extent of\t the
\nprovision  has\tto be kept in view.  These rules  have\tbeen
\nframed\tin exercise of the power conferred by clause (a)  of
\nsub-section  (2) of Section 39 of the G I B Act.  The object
\nof  these rules is entirely different.\tThese rules lay down
\nthe  manner  in which the profits, if any, and other  monies
\nreceived  by the General Insurance Corporation may be  dealt
\nwith.\tThe  concept behind Rule 2 (2) (a) is to permit\t the
\nCorporation to enter the amount of reserve in the profit and
\nloss  account  in the expenditure side which would not\thave
\nbeen permissible otherwise because the amount set apart in a
\nreserve\t cannot\t be expenditure.  The rule puts a  stamp  of
\npermissibility on something not permissible otherwise.\tThis
\nrule  itself  is suggestive of the fact that the amount\t set
\napart  in a reserve is not an expenditure in its  commercial
\nsense.\t The  extent  of the GIB Rules does  not  go  beyond
\nproviding  an  accounting  method.  These  Rules  cannot  be
\npressed into service for altering the basic character of the
\namount\twhich is not an expenditure.  Merely because Rule  2
\n(2)  (a)  of  GIB  Rules permits the amount  set  apart\t for
\nredemption  of preference shares being debited to the profit
\nand  loss  account, the amount so set apart does not  become
\nthe  amount of an expenditure for all intent and purposes so
\nas  to fall within the meaning of the term `expenditure’  as
\nemployed  in  Rule 5(a) of First Schedule to the  Income-tax
\nAct, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
      If  the view taken by the High Court is accepted there
\nwould  be a conflict between the provisions of Rule  2(2)(a)
\nof  GIB Rules and Rule 5(a) of First Schedule to  Income-tax
\nAct.   The object of Rule 2(2)(a) is to reduce the amount of
\nprofit\tof Corporation by the amount set apart as reserve by
\nartificially  treating\tthe amount of reserve as an item  in
\nexpenditure  column.   If the same amount was allowed to  be
\nadded  back to profits under Rule 5(a) of First Schedule  to
\nIncome-tax Act then the object sought to be achieved by Rule
\n2(2)(a) abovesaid is defeated.\tThe non-obstante clause with
\nwhich  Section\t44 of Income-tax Act opens and gives  it  an
\nover-riding  effect only on the provisions of Income-tax Act
\nwould earn an overriding effect on the provisions of another
\nenactment  also though the Parliament has not chosen to give
\nSection\t 44 of the Income-tax Act such an effect.  It is  to
\nbe  noted  that Section 44 does not say\t –  `notwithstanding
\nanything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this
\nAct or any other law for the time being in force’.\n<\/p>\n
      Nor  does\t the  Rule  2(2)(a) of\tGIB  Rules  have  an
\noverriding  effect on the provisions of Income-tax Act.\t The
\ntwo  provisions\t contained  in\t two  enactments  have\tthus
\ndifferent   purposes  to  achieve.    Rule   of\t  harmonious
\nconstruction  would  therefore\tsustain\t  neither  what\t the
\nIncome-tax  officer did nor the view of the law taken by the
\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n
      There  is another approach to the same issue.  Section
\n44  of\tthe Income-tax Act read with the Rules contained  in
\nthe  First Schedule to the Act lays down an artificial\tmode
\nof  computing  the profits and gains of insurance  business.
\nFor  the purpose of income-tax, the figures in the  accounts
\nof  the assessee drawn up in accordance with the  provisions
\nof  the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act and  satisfying
\nthe  requirements  of  Insurance  Act  are  binding  on\t the
\nassessing  officer  under the Income-tax Act and he  has  no
\ngeneral\t power\tto correct the errors in the accounts of  an
\ninsurance business and undo the entries made therein.\n<\/p>\n
      In  the  Life Insurance of India Vs.  CIT – 1964\t(51)
\nITR  773  SC  their  Lordships were dealing  with  the\tpari
\nmateria\t provisions  contained in the Income-tax Act,  1922.
\nThe  Court  analysed  the  scheme  underlying  the  relevant
\nprovisions  of\tthe Insurance Act, 1938 and  the  Income-tax
\nAct,  1922 and held that where the accounts of an  insurance
\ncompany\t engaged  in insurance business are required  to  be
\nsubmitted  and approved by the Controller of Insurance,\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer has no power to change the figures in the
\naccounts  of the assessee.  A.K.  Sarkar,J.  recorded in his
\nopinion :\n<\/p>\n
      “The  assessment\tof  the\t  profits  of  an  insurance
\nbusiness is completely governed by the rules in the Schedule
\nand  there  is no power to do anything not contained in\t it.
\nThe reason may be that the accounts of an insurance business
\nare  fully  controlled by the Controller of Insurance  under
\nthe  provisions\t of the Insurance Act.\tThey are checked  by
\nhim.   He  has power to see that various provisions  of\t the
\nInsurance  Act\tare complied with by an insurer so that\t the
\npersons\t who have insured with it are not made to suffer  by
\nmismanagement.\t A tampering with the accounts of an insurer
\nby an Income-tax Officer may seriously affect the working of
\ninsurance  companies.  But apart from this consideration, we
\nfeel  no  doubt that the language of section 10(7)  and\t the
\nSchedule  to  the Income-tax Act makes it perfectly  certain
\nthat  the  Income-tax Officer could not make the  adjustment
\nthat he did in these cases.”\n<\/p>\n
      M.Hidayatullah,J.\t (as His Lordship then was) observed
\n:\n<\/p>\n
      “the  Income-tax Act contemplates that the  assessment
\nof  insurance companies should be carried out not  according
\nto  the ordinary principles applicable to business  concerns
\nas  laid  down\tin  section 10, but  in\t quite\ta  different
\nmanner.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  view so taken has been followed by this Court  in
\nPandyan\t Insurance Company Ltd.\t Vs.  CIT, Madras 1965\t(55)
\nITR  716 SC and CIT, West Bengal Vs.  Calcutta Hospital\t and
\nNursing\t Home Benefits Association Ltd.\t – 1965 (57) ITR 313
\nSC.  In the later case, their Lordships have also observed :
\n“the  balance  of  profits  as\tdisclosed  by  the  accounts
\nsubmitted to the Superintendent of Insurance and accepted by
\nhim  would be binding on the Income-tax Officer, except that
\nthe   Income-tax  Officer  would  be  entitled\tto   exclude
\nexpenditure  other  than expenditure permissible  under\t the
\nprovisions of section 10 of the Act.  It is common ground in
\nthis  case that the reserves which were added to the balance
\nof profits were not expenditure.”\n<\/p>\n
      The  cases  relied  on  by  the  High  Court  have  no
\napplicability to the facts of the case and the issue arising
\nfor  decision herein.  In Anarkali Sarabhai’s case (supra) ,
\nthe  question arising for decision was whether redemption by
\na  company  of\ta preference share amounts to  sale  of\t the
\nshares by the shareholder to the company so as to be taxable
\nfor  capital  gains  as\t amounting to  transfer\t within\t the
\nmeaning\t of  Section  2 (47) of the  Income-tax\t Act,  1961.
\nTheir Lordships held that such redemption amounted to a sale
\nand  hence  was covered by the definition of  transfer.\t  In
\nAssociated  Power Co.  Ltd’s case (Supra) monies standing to
\nthe  credit  of\t the contingencies reserve set apart  to  be
\nutilised  by  the  electricity company to meet\texpenses  or
\nrecoup loss of profits arising out of accidents, strikes, or
\nother\tcircumstances  etc.   were   claimed   as   business
\nexpenditure  entitled  to deduction.  It was also  submitted
\nthat  the amount so set apart in the reserve had resulted in
\ndiversion of income by reason of an overriding title.  Their
\nLordships  held that the amount had reached the hands of the
\ncompany\t and inspite of having been set apart by creating  a
\nreserve\t was still available with the company and  therefore
\ncould neither be treated as an expenditure nor excluded from
\ncomputing  the income of the assessee by application of\t the
\ndoctrine  of diversion of income by reason of an  overriding
\ntitle  or  obligation.\t In  Colaba  Central  Co-  operative
\nConsumers’  Wholesale and Retail Stores Ltd.’s case  (Supra)
\ndecided\t by  a Division Bench of Bombay High Court also\t the
\namount\tin question was set apart by the society as  capital
\ncontribution  redemption  fund.\t  The\tHigh  Court   having
\nexamined the nature of the amount and the accounts held that
\nthe amount so set apart was neither business expenditure nor
\nliable to be excluded from computation of income by applying
\nthe doctrine of diversion of income by overriding title.  In
\nour  opinion, none of the cases has any applicability to the
\ncase  at hand.\tIn none of the three cases, the question  of
\ndetermining  applicability  of\tSection\t 44  and  the  First
\nSchedule of the Income-tax Act arose for consideration.\n<\/p>\n
      To  sum up, the amount set apart by general  insurance
\ncorporation  for redemption of preference shares and treated
\nas expenditure under Rule<\/p>\n
      2(2)(a)\t  of\t General      Insurance\t    Business
\n(Nationalisation)  Rules, 1973 is so treated for the purpose
\nof  Insurance Act, 1938.  The reserve is not an\t expenditure
\nin  ordinary  commercial  sense of the term.  It  cannot  be
\nadded  back  for computing profits and gains of business  by
\nincluding  it  in  `expenditure\t not  admissible  under\t the
\nprovisions  of\tSections  30 to 43A of\tIncome-tax  Act’  by
\nreference  to Rule 5(a) of the First Schedule to  Income-tax
\nAct,  1961.  The question referred to the High Court  should
\nhave been answered in affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
      The appeal is allowed.  The judgment of the High Court
\nis set aside and in supersession thereof it is directed that
\nthe  question  referred\t by the Tribunal to the\t High  Court
\nshall  stand answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of
\nthe assessee and against the Revenue.  No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India General Insurance Corporation Of … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 21 September, 1999 Author: R.C. Lahoti Bench: S.Rajendra R.C.Lahoti PETITIONER: GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA . Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/09\/1999 BENCH: S.Rajendra R.C.Lahoti JUDGMENT: R.C. LAHOTI, J General Insurance Corporation of India, the appellant […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1154","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGeneral Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"General Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-23T11:09:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"General Insurance Corporation Of … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 21 September, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-23T11:09:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3305,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999\",\"name\":\"General Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-23T11:09:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"General Insurance Corporation Of … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 21 September, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"General Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"General Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-23T11:09:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"General Insurance Corporation Of … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 21 September, 1999","datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-23T11:09:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999"},"wordCount":3305,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999","name":"General Insurance Corporation Of ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 21 September, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-23T11:09:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/general-insurance-corporation-of-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-21-september-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"General Insurance Corporation Of … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … on 21 September, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1154"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1154\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1154"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1154"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1154"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}