16 and 18 and Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited

8 SCC 333Reported decision2011#18292 most cited
5

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2022 to 2025.

Sections most often in play

Section 143(1)Section 164Section 167BSection 2(29C)Section 255(3)Section 271Section 2(1)Section 2(3)

Judgments citing 16 and 18 and Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited

Mahalaxmi Construction Co, Mumbai vs. Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/MUM/2024[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2021-2022

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 255(3)

…come crosses prescribed thresholds. The phrase "including surcharge on income-tax, if any" in Section 2(29C) was argued to be parenthetical and indicative, not mandatory. The interpretation was supported by Fuerst Day Lawson Lid vs. Jindal Exports Ltd [(2011) 8 SCC 333], which held that bracketed phrases serve as supplementary explanations. The counsel also relied on several Tribunal decisions supporting slab-based surcharge application, including: 1. ITO vs. Tayal Sales Corporation ((2003) 1 SOT 579 (Hyd.)] 2. Lintas Employees Professional Development Trust vs. ITO (ITA No. 4791/Mum/2023); 3. Sriram Trust, Hyder…

Mahalaxmi Construction Co, Bhayandar West vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax CPC Bangeluru, Bangeluru

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4008/MUM/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Apr 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 143(1)Section 2Section 255(3)

…come crosses prescribed thresholds. The phrase "including surcharge on income-tax, if any" in Section 2(29C) was argued to be parenthetical and indicative, not mandatory. The interpretation was supported by Fuerst Day Lawson Lid vs. Jindal Exports Ltd [(2011) 8 SCC 333], which held that bracketed phrases serve as supplementary explanations. The counsel also relied on several Tribunal decisions supporting slab-based surcharge application, including: 1. ITO vs. Tayal Sales Corporation ((2003) 1 SOT 579 (Hyd.)] 2. Lintas Employees Professional Development Trust vs. ITO (ITA No. 4791/Mum/2023); 3. Sriram Trust, Hyder…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. M/s. Idea Cellular Limited

ITTA/11/2021HC Telangana19 Oct 2023

Bench: P.SAM KOSHY,LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Dimple Murarka

ITA/11/2021HC Orissa21 Jul 2023

Bench: MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

Pr Commissioner of Income Tax Central II vs. M/S Sharp Mint Limited

The appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms

ITA/13/2021HC Delhi07 Feb 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

Section 124Section 57

…PPL on paragraphs 71, 86 and 148 of the P.S. Sathappan case was clearly misplaced, as these were observations made in the minority judgment. 9.9 Likewise, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Fuerst Day Lawson Ltd. v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (2011) 8 SCC 333 will not carry the argument advanced on behalf of PPL much further as it concerns the provisions of the 1996 A&C Act. As submitted before, courts, which include the Supreme Court, having regard to the provisions, object and preamble of the 1996 A&C Act have concluded that the supervisory role of courts in the arbitration process should be mini…

16 and 18 and Fuerst Day Lawson Limited v. Jindal Exports Limited (8 SCC 333) — Cited in 5 Judgments | BharatTax