PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI vs JINDAL SAW LTD.

Judgment text excerpt

$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of decision: 12th February, 2026 + ITA 689/2025 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-3, DELHI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC with Mr. Shivendra Singh, JSC, Mr. Yojit Pareek JSC & Mr. Surya Jindal, Adv. versus JINDAL SAW LTD. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Saksham Singhal & Mr. Tavish Verma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (Oral) 1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench “B”: New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed. 2. The Revenue has proposed the following question of law before this Court in its appeal: “2.1 Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ITAT is justified in deleting the additional grounds raised by the assessee to claim excise duty refund of Rs.59,68,88,582/- as the assessee has already been treated as revenue receipt in return of income itself ?” Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:13.02.2026 ITA 689/2025 Page 1 of 3 17:14:29 3. While doing so the Tribunal held that the subsidy on the excise duty paid, which the respondent-assessee received under the excise duty exemption provided by the Central Government was a capital receipt and not liable to be taxed under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are apprised that the subsidy in question was received under the Incentive Scheme 2001 for Economic Development of Kutch District (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme of 2001”), issued by the Government of Gujarat on 09.11.2001, after the infliction of earthquake in Kutc