COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. JAGATJIT INDUSTRIES LTD.
What did the High Court hold?
The Tribunal held that gains on foreign exchange fluctuations arising from share capital raised through GDRs are capital receipts, irrespective of their end use. The source of the funds (share capital) is the determining factor, not its utilization.
What were the facts?
The assessee company raised foreign currency through the issuance of equity shares via GDR. Fluctuations in exchange rates led to gains on this foreign exchange. The Revenue argued that a portion of these gains, used for working capital, should be treated as revenue receipts.
What were the issues?
Whether gains on foreign exchange fluctuation on funds raised as share capital are capital or revenue receipts. Whether the utilization of such funds for working capital makes the gains revenue in nature.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT72 citing243 ITR 158 · 2010 · SC
- 7 citing

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
ITA No. 365 of 2007
Judgment Reserved on: 26th August, 2009.
Judgment Pronounced on: 25th September, 2009.
CORAM:-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
- 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? - 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
For orders, see ITA No. 369 of 2007.
(A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE
(VALMIKI J. MEHTA) JUDGE
September 25, 2009. pmc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
1) ITA No. 369 of 2007
Judgment Reserved on: 26th August, 2009. Judgment Pronounced on: 25th September, 2009.
...Appellant
Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with Mr. Paras Chaudhary and Ms. Anshul Sharma,
WITH
ITA No. 364 of 2007
ITA No. 365 of 2007
Ms. Prem Lata Bansal with Mr. Paras Chaudhary and Ms. Anshul Sharma,
. . . Respondent Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Mr.
and Mr Johnson Bara

4) ITA No. 368 of 2007
. . . Respondent
5) ITA No. 370 of 2007
. Appellant
6) ITA No. 923 of 2008
CORAM:-
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

- 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? - 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest?
A.K. SIKRI, J.
رهي
- 1. Common question which arises for consideration in all these appeals filed by the Revenue is as to whether the receipt on account of exchange rate fluctuation of foreign exchange receipt is a capital receipt or revenue receipt irrespective of the source of the said income. An alternate plea was also taken by the Revenue to the effect that 22% of the funds were utilized for working capital, which is in a nature of circulating capital and therefore, 22% of the gain on account of exchange rate fluctuation is to be held as revenue receipt. - 2. The assessee is the same in all these appeals and the aforesaid issue arose in various Assessment Years, under the following facts and circumstances. - 3. The assessee is a multi-product company engaged in the business of alcoholic beverages, malted milk food, dairy products, etc. During the assessment year 1997-98, the assessee company had issued 2,52,10,000 equity shares overseas by way of GDR and collected USD 1,57,17,000 as share capital. It was equivalent to Rs.55 Crores (net of issue expenses) at the conversion rate of RS.35/- per dollar. The



- 6. It is, in these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal is challenged by the Revenue. According to the Revenue, following questions of law need to be determined: - a) Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the entire gain on account of exchange rate fluctuation as arisen to the assessee is not liable to tax? - b) Whether the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is perverse as it has ignored the relevant facts on record as well as ignored the relevant provisions of law? - 7. It would be relevant to point out at this stage that initially for the Assessment Year 1997-98, the entire gain on the foreign exchange fluctuation was treated by the Assessing Officer as capital gain and, therefore, the amount was not added to the income of the assessee. However, this order was revised by the Commissioner of Income Tax in exercise of his powers under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, pointing out that part of the share capital raised was to be utilized for working capital, which aspect was not considered by the Assessing Officer and matter was remanded back to the AO for fresh consideration. Thereupon, the AO passed the orders treating 78%

Even if money is raised by issuance of equity share domestically money thus collected as share capital is treated as capital receipt. \ Obviously, for setting up or for expansion of business, part of the said share capital raised can be utilized for acquiring assets and from other part, the other expenses can be met treating the same as 'working capital'. Merely because the part of the share capital is used as 'working capital' that has never been treated as revenue receipt. Once this aspect becomes clear and the entire money raised through issue of equity shares is to be treated as share capital, the gains on account of foreign exchange fluctuations, in the event such share capital collected in foreign exchange, the determination as to whether it is to be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt cannot depend upon the end use of the share capital.
Learned Tribunal has rightly held that relevant consideration would be to see the source of funds under which it was held and not the ultimate utilization of the funds, relying upon the following judgments:
- i) Commissioner of Sales Tax, Delhi v. The Motor & General Finance Ltd., 94 ITR 582. - ii) The Travencore Rubber & Tea Co. Ltd. v. C.I.T., Trivandrum, 243 ITR 158. - 11. The leaned counsel for the Revenue had relied upon the judgment of


approval granted by the Ministry of Finance, Government of Inqua. We thus, decide the aforesaid questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As a consequence, all these appeals are dismissed with costs.
(A.K. SIKRI JUDGE
(VALMIKI J. MEHTA)
JUDGE
September 25, 2009.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026
- Commissioner/Additional Commissioner Of Central Tax vs. M/S INDIA Agro Exports Private LimitedKarnataka · 28 Oct 2026