Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20322 (BOM)

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2 v. JSW STEEL LTD. (FOREMERLY ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD)

ITXA/194/2019 · 2026-10-15

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

41.ITXA-194-2019.DOC Gauri Gaekwad IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2019 Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central - 2 …Appellant Versus JSW Steel Ltd. (Formerly M/s. Ispat Industries Ltd.) …Respondent Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Ms. Priyanka Jain a/w. Ms. Sofiya Shanmugam i/b. Vaish Associates for the Respondent. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATED: 15th OCTOBER 2026. PC:- 1. This Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been preferred by the Revenue assailing the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai, in Income Tax Appeal No.1541/Mum/2016 for the Assessment Year 2011-2012, by projecting the following substantial question of law: (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in treating the gain of Rs.127,71,96,656/- on pre-payment of deferred VAT/sales tax on NPV basis as capital receipt and thus exempt from tax, instead of the finding of the Income Tax Authorities that the same is chargeable to tax as business income of the assessee GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Digitally signed by GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD Date: 2026.10.16 10:58:30 +0530 41.ITXA-194-2019.DOC as remission/ cessation of trading liability in terms of section 41(1) of the Act? 2. However, when this Appeal was called out for admission hearing, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Departmental Counsel, has submitted, in his usual fairness, that the aforesaid question of law has not only been decided by this Court in favour of the Assessee, but the said decision has already been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income Tax – 6, Mum. v/s. Balkrishna Industries Ltd.1 Therefore, the substantial question of law does not survive for consideration by this Court in the present Appeal. Ms. Jain, learned counsel for the Respondent, has confirmed the same position. 3. In view of the above, the Appeal stands disposed of. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) { 1. [2017] 88 taxmann.com 273 (SC)