Bombay High Court
ITXA/194/2019 of PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-2 Vs JSW STEEL LTD. (FOREMERLY ISPAT INDUSTRIES LTD) on 15 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE
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:-
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
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
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)