SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 16

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
R. MAHADEVAN, J
M/S JINDAL EQUIPMENT LEASING CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD – Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI – II, NEW DELHI – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Ajay Vohra
For the Respondents: learned Additional Solicitor General

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the issue of bail is not directly addressed within the text. The document primarily discusses the tax implications of amalgamation under the Income Tax Act, the nature of transfer, and the timing and realization of income in the context of corporate mergers and stock-in-trade.

However, generally, in the context of tax disputes or proceedings related to such matters, bail considerations would typically fall under criminal or procedural law rather than the specific tax provisions discussed here. If the question pertains to bail in a related criminal case or a proceeding involving the assessment or recovery process, it would be governed by the applicable criminal procedure or civil procedure laws, not directly by the tax law provisions discussed in the document.

In the absence of explicit references to bail within this document, I recommend examining the relevant criminal or procedural statutes, or providing additional context regarding the nature of the case—whether it involves criminal charges, proceedings for recovery, or other legal processes where bail might be relevant.

If you need advice on bail in a specific context or a different legal matter, please provide further details, and I will assist accordingly.


JUDGMENT

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise out of a common judgment and final order dated 07.08.2020 passed by the High Court of Delhi, Hereinafter referred to as “the High Court” in ITA Nos. 935, 822, 853, and 961 of 2005, pertaining to the Assessment Year 1997-98. By the impugned judgment, the High Court remanded the matters to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, For short, “the Tribunal” for fresh adjudication on the question of whether the shares held in the amalgamating company constituted stock-in-trade or capital assets, upon observing that, if the shares were, in fact, held as stock-in-trade, the transaction would fall outside the purview of Section 47 (vii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , For short, “the I.T. Act”, and its taxability would consequently be governed by Section 28 under the head “profits and gains of business or profession”.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The facts, which are common to all these appeals, may be briefly stated as under:

3.1. The appellants are investment companies of the Jindal Group. The shares of the operating companies, namely Jindal Ferro Alloys Limited (JFAL) and Jindal Strips Limited (JSL), were held as part of the promoter holding

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top