{"id":116219,"date":"2010-10-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-10-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010"},"modified":"2018-11-01T03:03:26","modified_gmt":"2018-10-31T21:33:26","slug":"commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Manmohan<\/div>\n<pre>                                                                                         #6\n$~\n*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n+       ITA 1500\/2010\n\n        COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX           ..... Appellant\n                    Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal , Advocate\n\n\n                        versus\n\n\n        JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED                 ..... Respondent<\/pre>\n<p>                      Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n<pre>%                                        Reserved on: 30th September, 2010.\n                                         Date of Decision: 6th October, 2010\n\n\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE\nHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN\n\n1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?      No\n2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes\n<\/pre>\n<p>3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?Yes<\/p>\n<p>MANMOHAN, J<\/p>\n<p>1.      The present appeal has been filed under Section 260A of Income<\/p>\n<p>Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity, &#8220;Act&#8221;) challenging the order dated 22nd<\/p>\n<p>June, 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Tribunal&#8221;) in ITA No. 1847\/Del\/2008, for the Assessment Year 2004-<\/p>\n<p>2005.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>2.      Briefly stated the relevant facts of the present case are that the<\/p>\n<p>respondent-assessee filed a return declaring income of ` 71.43 crores.<\/p>\n<p>However, the assessment was completed under Section 143(3)\/153A of<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">ITA 1500\/2010                                                                  Page 1 of 5<\/span><br \/>\n the Act wherein respondent-assessee&#8217;s income was computed at ` 83.06<\/p>\n<p>crores. On 10th April, 2007, the Assessing Officer (in short, &#8220;AO&#8221;)<\/p>\n<p>reduced the income to ` 79.81 crores under Section 154 of the Act.<\/p>\n<p>3.     Subsequently, as the AO was of the opinion that the respondent-<\/p>\n<p>assessee had not added a sum of ` 39.28 lacs being provision for<\/p>\n<p>doubtful debts and advances\/bad debts to the income, he issued a fresh<\/p>\n<p>notice under Section 154 of the Act. Since the respondent-assessee did<\/p>\n<p>not respond to the said notice, another notice dated 13 th July, 2007 was<\/p>\n<p>issued.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>4.     In reply to the aforesaid notice, respondent-assessee submitted<\/p>\n<p>that out of ` 39.28 lacs, amount of ` 38,59,820\/- were bad debts and a<\/p>\n<p>sum of ` 68,039\/- only was towards provision. However, the AO<\/p>\n<p>added the entire amount of ` 39.28 lacs to the income of the<\/p>\n<p>respondent-assessee under Section 154 of the Act.<\/p>\n<p>5.     Though the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short,<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;CIT(A)&#8221;] dismissed the respondent-assessee&#8217;s appeal, the Tribunal<\/p>\n<p>deleted the addition of ` 39.28 lacs made by the AO under Section 154<\/p>\n<p>of the Act on the ground that AO&#8217;s action was on a debatable issue and<\/p>\n<p>jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act could have been invoked only<\/p>\n<p>to rectify a mistake apparent from the record&#8211;which was not the<\/p>\n<p>present case. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced<\/p>\n<p>hereinbelow:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">ITA 1500\/2010                                                 Page 2 of 5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>        &#8220;6. After hearing both the sides and going through the<br \/>\n       records, we hold that the provisions of S. 154 of the I.T.<br \/>\n       Act, 1961 can be invoked when there is a mistake and the<br \/>\n       mistake is apparent from records. When the mistake was<br \/>\n       not apparent from the records and there can be conflict of<br \/>\n       views and there are possibility of more than one view, the<br \/>\n       AO cannot justify the rectification as a mistake apparent<br \/>\n       from the record. In the present case the AO has made an<br \/>\n       order u\/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act on 19.7.2007. Assessee<br \/>\n       complied with the queries made during the assessment<br \/>\n       proceedings. Nothing has been said in respect of this bad<br \/>\n       debt\/provision for the bad debt in this assessment order u\/s<br \/>\n       143(3). A decision on a debatable point of law or failure<br \/>\n       to apply the law to a set of facts which remains to be<br \/>\n       investigated cannot be corrected by way of rectification u\/s<br \/>\n       154 of the I.T. Act, 1961. This section does not empower<br \/>\n       the AO to investigate a particular point which he had<br \/>\n       apparently missed at the time of finalization of the order<br \/>\n       u\/s 143(3) of the Act. The AO claimed that the assessee<br \/>\n       was provided with an opportunity before rectification<br \/>\n       appears to be irrelevant to the facts of the case when there<br \/>\n       was no mistake apparent from the record which can justify<br \/>\n       the action of the AO. The AO&#8217;s jurisdiction u\/s 154 of the<br \/>\n       I.T. Act is only limited to rectify the mistake apparent from<br \/>\n       the records. The mistake must be apparent on the face of<br \/>\n       the records. We are of the considered view that the AO&#8217;s<br \/>\n       action u\/s 154 of the I.T. Act on debatable issue and<br \/>\n       CIT(A)&#8217;s confirmation of the AO&#8217;s action does not appear<br \/>\n       to be good in the eye of law. In view of these facts, we set<br \/>\n       aside the order of AO as well as of the CIT(A) and direct<br \/>\n       to allow the claim of the assessee. Since we have granted<br \/>\n       relief to the assessee on ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 there is no<br \/>\n       need to adjudicate on remaining ground taken by assessee.<br \/>\n       In the result, the appeal of assesses is allowed.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>6.     Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, learned counsel for revenue submitted<\/p>\n<p>that the Tribunal had erred in law in deleting the addition of ` 39.28<\/p>\n<p>lacs made by the AO on account of provision for doubtful debts under<\/p>\n<p>Section 154 of the Act. She submitted that the AO had rightly invoked<\/p>\n<p>the jurisdiction under Section 154 of the Act as there was a mistake<\/p>\n<p>apparent from the record and the AO&#8217;s action was not a debatable issue.<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">ITA 1500\/2010                                                  Page 3 of 5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p> 7.     Though neither the notices dated 05th February, 2007 and 13th<\/p>\n<p>July, 2007 under Section 154 of the Act nor the AO&#8217;s order dated<\/p>\n<p>19thJuly, 2007 have been placed on record, yet from the CIT(A)&#8217;s and<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal&#8217;s order it is apparent that the AO had added an amount of<\/p>\n<p>`38,59,820\/- on the ground that doubtful debts and advances were not<\/p>\n<p>allowable under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Act. However, the Supreme<\/p>\n<p>Court recently in the case of T.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income<\/p>\n<p>Tax (2010) 323 ITR 397 (SC) has held that after 01st April, 1989, it is<\/p>\n<p>not necessary for the assessee to establish under Section 36(1)(vii) that<\/p>\n<p>the debt had become irrecoverable. To claim deduction under Section<\/p>\n<p>36(1)(vii), it was enough if the bad debt is written off by the assessee as<\/p>\n<p>irrecoverable in its accounts. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid<\/p>\n<p>judgment and assessee&#8217;s stand, deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) was<\/p>\n<p>certainly a debatable issue.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>8.     We are also in agreement with the view of the Tribunal that<\/p>\n<p>neither a debatable point of law nor failure to apply the correct law to a<\/p>\n<p>set of facts can be corrected by way of a rectification under Section 154<\/p>\n<p>of the Act.     In fact, the Supreme Court in the case of         MEPCO<\/p>\n<p>Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax and Another (2009)<\/p>\n<p>319 ITR 208 (SC) has held that the right to rectify mistakes under<\/p>\n<p>Section 154 of the Act cannot be invoked in case of change of opinion.<\/p>\n<p>A rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and not something<\/p>\n<p>which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or<\/p>\n<p>where two opinions are possible.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">ITA 1500\/2010                                                   Page 4 of 5<\/span>\n<\/p>\n<p> 9.     Consequently, the Tribunal in the present case has rightly held<\/p>\n<p>that a decision on a debatable point of law cannot be treated as a<\/p>\n<p>mistake apparent from the record.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>10.    Accordingly, the present appeal being devoid of merit, is<\/p>\n<p>dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>                                                  MANMOHAN, J<\/p>\n<p>                                                  CHIEF JUSTICE<\/p>\n<p>OCTOBER 06, 2010<br \/>\njs<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">ITA 1500\/2010                                               Page 5 of 5<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010 Author: Manmohan #6 $~ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 1500\/2010 COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX &#8230;.. Appellant Through: Ms. Prem Lata Bansal , Advocate versus JINDAL STAINLESS LIMITED &#8230;.. Respondent Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate. % [&hellip;]<\/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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116219","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-31T21:33:26+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-31T21:33:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1092,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-31T21:33:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-31T21:33:26+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010","datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-31T21:33:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010"},"wordCount":1092,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010","name":"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-10-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-31T21:33:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-ofincome-tax-vs-jindal-stainless-limited-on-6-october-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Ofincome Tax vs Jindal Stainless Limited on 6 October, 2010"}]},{"@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\/116219","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=116219"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116219\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=116219"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=116219"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=116219"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}