How many judgments cite CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd.?

14 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137), spanning 2011 to 2023.

CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd.

314 ITR 137High Court2009#7846 most cited

What is CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd. authority for?

Amendments to explanations under Sections 234B and 234C were clarificatory, confirming that assessees were entitled to credit for MAT paid under Section 115JAA even before the amendment, by virtue of Section 140A.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,402 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2023.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd. · 314 ITR 137 · Section 115JAA · Section 140A · Section 234B · Section 234C · MAT credit · clarificatory amendment · implicit provision

Read the full judgment

Judgments citing CIT v. Jindal Exports Ltd.

Dy CIT CC 1(4), Mumbai vs. M/S Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 931/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Ultratech Cement Limited V. Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) Dcit, Central Circle-1(4) V. M/S. Ultratech Cement Limited Room No. 902, 9Th Floor Ahura Centre, ‘B’ Wing 2Nd Floor Mahakali Caves Road Pratishtha Bhavan, Old Cgo Annexe Maharishi Karve Road Andheri (E), Mumbai- 400093 Mumbai- 400020 Pan: Aaacl6442L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under section 115JAA of the Act by virtue of section 140A of t…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT CC 1(4), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 465/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 115Section 32Section 32ASection 80I

Jt. CIT (OSD)- CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 3764/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (VIRTUAL COURT) “J” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOs.1412, 1413 2461 & 2462/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2012-13, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15) UltraTech Cement Ltd., v. DCIT, Central Circle -1(4) Ahura Centre, “B" Wing Pratishtha Bhavan, Old. C.G.O. Bldg., 2nd Floor, Mahakali Caves Road M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai Andheri (E), Mumbai - 400093 PAN: AAACL6442L (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA NOs. 2871, 2872 &2873/MUM/2018 (A.Ys: 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14) DCIT, Central Circle -1(4) v. UltraTech Cement Lt…

DCIT- CC- 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2873/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

DCIT -CC-1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2872/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

DCIT - CC - 1(4), Mumbai vs. Ultratech Cement Ltd., Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2871/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2462/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 2461/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly

ITA 1413/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

…tled principle that when law makes something explicit, which is implicit in the provisions, the amendment or deletion of the explicit provision does not take away what is implicitly provided. The Hon’ble Delhi High Courtin case of CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137) which is approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Tulsyan NEC Ltd. (330 ITR 226) held that the amendment to explanation C.O.NOs. 130, 118 & 155/MUM/2019 UltraTech Cement Ltd., under section 234B and 234C of the Act was clarificatory since even for the years prior to the amendment the assessee was entitled to get credit of MAT paid under…

Ultratech Cement Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 1(4), Mumbai

In the result appeals and Cross Objection of the assessee for Assessment Years 2011-12, 2012, 2013-14 and 2014-15 are partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 1412/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Nishant ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra

Section 115Section 153CSection 32Section 35Section 80I

Rashtriya Chemical Fetilizers Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT Large Tax Payer Unit, Mumbai

ITA 2239/MUM/2013[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 May 2018AY 1998-99

For Appellant: Shri S.E. Dastur and Shri Niraj ShethFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Meena -CIT-DR

Section 140ASection 143Section 234BSection 234B(1)Section 234B(2)

…he Act,that SAT was paid u/s.140, that interests u/s.215, 220 and 234B was payable after taking into consideration the payment under those sections, that there was no category called ad hoc payment under the Act. He referred to the case of Jindal Exports Ltd. 314 ITR 137) of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and held that interest was payable to the assessee under chapter XIX of the Act and u/s.234D on the funds, that none of the sections refer to any category called otherwise, that words otherwise mentioned in section 234B (2) is in Contradistinction to payments made u/s.140A, that the payments made on 30/04/0998 and…

Surya Roshni Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6068/DEL/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh.R.K.Panda & Sh.K.N.Charysurya Roshni Ltd., Vs Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Padma Tower-I, Circle-I, Ltu 5, Rajendra Place, New Delhi-110008. New Delhi. Pan-Aaacs3558C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Arvind Kumar, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 18.10.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 27.10.2017 Order Per K.N.Charythis Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.08.2015 In Appeal No.173/14-15 Passing By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal) [In Short “Cit(A)”]-22, New Delhi For 2013-14 Assessment Year, On The Following Grounds:

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 234Section 234B

…d for the sake of principle equity, equality and natural justice.” 4. Per contra, it is the submission of the Ld.DR that in view of the clear provision u/s 234B(4) and 234C(5) and in the light of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jindal Export Ltd. 314 ITR 137 & Tulsyan NEC LTd. 330 ITR 226, MAT credit cannot be sought for set off against the MAT but the set of is allowable only in respect of the tax calculated under the normal provision of the Act when it exceeds the MAT, otherwise the very purpose of introduction of the provision of section 115JB are defeated inasmuch as after the payment of MAT for…

Asst CIT Cen Cir 38, Mumbai vs. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 925/MUM/2014[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosainacit, Central Circle-38 M/S. Uniphos Enterprises Ltd. (Formerly United Phosphorous Ltd.) Room No. 32(1), Gr. Floor Vs. Uniphos Hosue, 11Th Road Àayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road C.D. Marg, Khar (W), Mumbai Mumbai 400020 Pan - Aaacu3440P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mukundraj ChateFor Respondent: Ms. Saisudha Multani

Section 11Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 2Section 234BSection 244A

…115JA specifically provides that no interest shall be payable on tax credit allowed u/s. 115JA(1). 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in following the decision of the CIT vs. Jindal Exports Ltd. (314 ITR 137 (Del) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court had rightly held that credit u/s. 115JAA should be given before charging of interest 234B & 234C, for which specific provisions is in these sections to allow credit of same before charging interest u/s. 234B & 234C, and no such provision is prescribed for allowed credit. 4. Ground No. 1 4.1 In this groun…

CIT vs. Bharat Aluminium Co Ltd

ITA/1890/2010HC Delhi11 May 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

Section 115JSection 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234CSection 244ASection 254

…ITA No. 1890 of 2010 Page 1 of 16 REPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA No.1890 of 2010 Reserved On: April 18, 2011 % Pronounced On: May 11, 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX . . . APPELLANT through : Ms. P.L. Bansal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Deepak Anand, Advocate. VERSUS BHARAT ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. . . .RESPONDENT through: Mr. M.S. Syali, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Madhavi Swaroop, Advocate and Mr. Mayank Nagi, Advocate. CORAM :- HON’BLE MR…