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

16 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Jindal Polyester Ltd. (397 ITR 282), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Jindal Polyester Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 153D, Section 132, Section 133A, Section 142(1), Section 143(2).

CIT v. Jindal Polyester Ltd.

397 ITR 282High Court2017#7017 most cited

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

The Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Jindal Polyester Ltd. held that custom duty paid on de-bonding is either allowable as depreciation or as revenue expenditure.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Jindal Polyester Ltd. · 397 ITR 282 · Allahabad High Court · custom duty · de-bonding · revenue expenditure · depreciation · deduction

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 153D Section 132 Section 133A Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 145 Section 147

Issues it is cited on

non application of mind rejection of books of account section 153d cross objection accommodation entry section 151 search and seizure section 153 section 15 section 132 section 147 company

Judgments citing CIT v. Jindal Polyester Ltd.

DCIT, CC-18, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Jagat Agro Commodties Pv. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1883/DEL/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

…398 (Ker) 9CIT vs. Cochin Refinieries Ltd.) 4. 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd. vs. CIT) 5. 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur) 6. 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT vs. Varas International P. ltd. 7. 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) KharidVechanSangh Ltd. vs. CIT. 8. 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs. Jindal Polyster Ltd. The respondent thus prays that it be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 2 above. 3. We have carefully considered the prayer for admission of additional grounds and heard both the sides on these issues. In our considered opinion in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision…

DCIT, CC-18, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Jagat Agro Commodties Pv. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 1882/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv., Sh. Shailesh GuptaFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69C

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 25, New Delhi, Delhi vs. Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt Ltd, Haryana

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2167/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year 2013-14 Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Balaji Metal Tech Pvt. Ltd. Tax,Centralcircle-25, New Haryana 20/21B, 2Nd Floor, Fruit Garden Delhi Nit Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad Pan No. Aaqcs0136E Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Cit Dr Respondent Sh. Madhur Aggarwal, Advocate

Section 153C

…ITR 398 (Ker) (CIT v/s Cochin Refinieries Ltd) 4. 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (1) Ltd v/s CIT) 5. 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO v/s Gurvinder Kaur) 6. 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. 7. 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) KharidVechan Sangh Ltd. vs CIT. 8. 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs Jindal Polyster Ltd. 5. The respondent thus prays that it be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 3 above.” 6. The above application of the assessee is admitted. The contention of the assessee in ground No.1 in Rule 27 Application that assessment year 2013-14 is beyond the block of 6 assessment yea…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Ramesh Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in the aforesaid manner

ITA 6881/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Salil Agarwal, Sr. Adv. &For Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT(DR)

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153A

…98 (Ker) 9CIT vs. Cochin Refinieries Ltd.) 4. 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd. vs. CIT) 5. 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur) 6. 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT vs. Varas International P. ltd. 7. 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. vs. CIT. 8. 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs. Jindal Polyster Ltd. The respondent thus prays that it be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 3 above. 3. We have carefully considered the prayer for admission of additional ground and heard both the counsels on the issue. In our considered opinion in the light of the Hon’ble Apex Court decision…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-25 New Delhi, Delhi vs. Faridabad Presswell Pvt Ltd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the

ITA 2801/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2801/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 बनाम Assistant Commissioner Of Faridabad Presswell Pvt. Ltd. Income Tax, Vs. 24, Ashoka Chamber, 5B, Central Circle-25, Room No.317, Rajindra Park, Pusa Road, 3Rd Floor, E-2, Ara Centre, New Delhi. Jhandewalan Extension, Pan No. Aaacfs815B Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 250

…ITR 398 (Ker) (CIT v/s Cochin Refineries Ltd) 4. 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd v/s CIT) 5. 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO v/s Gurvinder Kaur) 6. 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P. Ltd. 7. 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) KharidVechan Sangh Ltd. vs CIT. 8. 397 ITR 282 (AH) CIT vs Jindal Polyster Ltd.” 2.2 The Ld. DR, on the other hand, has filed submissions, from which some portions are reproduced as under: - “Respondent may support order on grounds decided against him, 27. The respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him." 4. As…

DCIT, Circle- 19(1), Delhi vs. Rakshit Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4727/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmadcit, Circle 19 (1), Vs. Rakshit Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., C – 1/207, 2Nd Floor, Delhi. Sector 11, Rohini, New Delhi – 110 085. (Pan : Aaecr2414E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. Advocate Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.11.2025 Date Of Order : 21.11.2025 O R D E R Per S.Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Revenue Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi-23 [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 14.08.2024 For Ay 2017-18. “(I) "Whether On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A), Has Erred In Not Appreciating That Detailed Investigation Was Already Carried Out By The Investigation Wing On The Issue Of Bogus Short Term Capital Loss From Alankit Group & The Assessee Was Not Able To Substantiate Its Claim With Evidences."

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 151

…r) (CIT vs. Cochin Refineries Ltd) (iv) 176 CTR 406 (Gau) (Assam Company (I) Ltd vs. CIT) (v) 102 ITD 189 (Del) (ITO vs. Gurvinder Kaur) (vi) 284 ITR 80 (SC) CIT V. Varas International P.Ltd. (vii) 149 Taxmann 456 (Guj) Kharid Vechan Sangh Ltd. vs CIT. (viii) 397 ITR 282 (All) CIT vs Jindal Polyster Ltd. He, therefore, prayed that the assessee may be permitted to urge the aforesaid grounds as raised and mentioned in para 3 above. 3. On the other hand, ld. DR of the Revenue objected to the same. 4. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we observe that as held in the case of B.R. Bamsi (supra), th…

Chiranjeev Kumar Vinayak, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-47(5), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 6644/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69C

…ine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 771/Mum/ 20 13.08.2018 (High Court of Delhi) (ii) CIT-4 v. Jamunadas Virji Shaes and Stock Brokres Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 258 (Bom.) (iii) DCIT v. Sandip m. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT v. Jindal polyster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All.) (v) Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. (19780 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT v. EdwerKeventer (Successors0 P. ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Delhi) (vii) Ultratech Cement ltd. v. Addl. CiT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 437 (Bom) (viii) Self Knitting Works v. CiT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P&H) The ld. DR relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, sub…

George Kutty, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3788/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2010-11] George Kutty, Vs Dcit, C/O-M/S. Oasis Tours India (P.) Circle-13(1), Ltd., C-40, Middle Circle, Dwarka New Delhi. Sadan, Connaught Place, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aajpk4005H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Manish Malik, Adv. Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 24.08.2022

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 276CSection 68

…e Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 771/Mum/20 13.08.2018, (High Court of Delhi) (ii) CIT-4 v. Jamunadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 458 (Bom.) (iii) DCIT v. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT v. Jindal Ployster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All.) (v) Addl. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT v. EdwertKeventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Dr (vii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. v. AddI. CIT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 43' (viii) Self Knitting Works v. CIT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P & H) The Id. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, submi…

M/S. Timken Engineering and Rsearch India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(4), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 162/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri AliasgarRampurwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 234BSection 40

…o paid is capital in nature and accordingly, disallowed the same. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 12. Before us, the assessee placed reliance on the decision rendered by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Jindal Polyester Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 in order to contend that the custom duty charges so paid is allowable as deduction. 13. We heard Ld. D.R. and perused the record. In the case of Jindal Polyester Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble High Court has noted that the ITAT had accepted the plea of the assessee regarding custom duty paid on de-bonding by holding that the assessee is entitled to d…

M/S. Timken Engineering and Research India Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(4), Bengaluru

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 161/BANG/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Apr 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Shri AliasgarRampurwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, D.R

Section 234BSection 40

Harish Kumar HUF, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-34(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 1469/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Dr. B.R.R. Kumara.Y. : 2015-16

For Appellant: Sh. Naveen ND Gupta, CA & Sh. AshuFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 288ASection 94(7)

…Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. (I) 771/Mum/20 13.08.2018, (High Court of Delhi) (ii) CIT-4 v. JamunadasVirji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (2013) 458 (Bom.) (iii) DCIT v. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT v. Jindal Ployster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All.) (v) Add/. CIT v. Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (VI) CIT v. EdwertKeventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Delhi) (vii) Ultra tech Cement Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 437 (Bom.) (viii) Self Knitting Works v. CIT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P & H) The Id. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncemen…

York Scientific Industries Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 27(4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 6030/DEL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

Section 133Section 133ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ine Infracon Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No 771./Mum/2013.08.2018, (High Court of Delhi) 10 (ii) CIT-4 vs Jamundadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers PVt. Ltd. (2013) (iii) DCIT vs Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT vs Jindal Polyster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (ALL.) (v) Addl. CIT V Gurjargravures (P.) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT vs Edwert Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (D) (vii) Ultratech cement Ltd. vs Addl. CIT, Range-2(2), (2017) 298 CTR 43 (viii) Self Knitting works \/s CIT(2014) 227 Taxman 253 (P & H) The Id. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncement…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Whiteline Barter Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5225/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 68

…of the Act were bad in law; that the ld. CIT (A) has decided this issue against the assessee. 6. Ld. DR for the Revenue opposed the application filed by the assessee under Rule 27 of the Rules by relying upon the decision viz. CIT vs. Jindal Polyester Ltd. 397 ITR 282 (All.), Divine 5 ITA No.5223/Del./2015 ITA No.5224/Del./2015 ITA No.5225/Del./2015 Infracon Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT – 2015-TIOL-1914-HC-DEL-IT, CIT vs. Edward Keventer (Successors) (P.) Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Del.), IAC vs. Avis International (P.) Ltd. – (1990) 33 ITD 217 (Del.), Self Knitting Works vs. CIT – (2014) 51 taxmann.com 137 (P&H), CIT…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Whiteline Barter Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5224/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 68

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Dhansafal Vyapaar Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5223/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Salil Aggarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 147Section 153Section 153ASection 68

Asst CIT Cen Cir 29, Mumbai vs. Shah Rukh Khan, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 5767/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 May 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri N.K.Pradhan, Am Dy. Commissoner Of Income-Tax, Shri Shah Rukh Khan Central Circle-4(2), Mumbai 44-Mannat, B.J. Road, Band बिधम/ (Erstwhile Assistant Commissioner Of Income Stand, Bandra (West), Tax, Central Circle-29, Mumbai) Mumbai-400 050. Vs. R. No. 1918, 19Th Floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 021 स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aahpk3293L (अऩीराथी /Revenue) (प्रत्मथी / Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri V. Justin, D.R

Section 112Section 143(2)Section 23(1)(a)Section 271(1)(c)

…td. (ITA No. 771/Mum/2014, dated 13.08.2018, (High Court of Delhi) (ii) CIT-4 Vs. Jamunadas Virji Shares and Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd.(2013) 258 CTR 458 (Bom) (iii) DCIT Vs. Sandip M. Patel (2012) 137 ITD 104 (Ahmedabad) (iv) CIT Vs. Jindal Ployster Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 282 (All) (v) Addl. CIT Vs. Gurjargravures (P) Ltd. (1978) 111 ITR 1 (SC) (vi) CIT Vs. Edwert Keventer (Successors) P. Ltd. (1980) 123 ITR 200 (Del) (vii) Ultratech Cement Ltd. Vs. Addl. CIT, Range-2(2) (2017) 298 CTR 437 (Bom) (viii) Self Knitting Works Vs. CIT (2014) 227 taxman 253 (P & H) The ld. D.R relying on the aforesaid judicial pronouncement…