{"id":103646,"date":"2008-07-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-07-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008"},"modified":"2017-11-29T23:04:59","modified_gmt":"2017-11-29T17:34:59","slug":"the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008","title":{"rendered":"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/37320\/2008\t 8\/ 8\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 373 of 2008\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 374 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nTHE\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nVersus\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nNEW\nLUCKY RESTAURANT - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1,MR MANISH R BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone for\nOpponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE BANKIM.N.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/07\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nCOMMON\nORAL ORDER<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)<\/p>\n<p>\t The Revenue has filed<br \/>\n\tthese Tax Appeals for the assessment years 1996-97 and 1998-99 under<br \/>\n\tSection 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 proposing to formulate the<br \/>\n\tfollowing substantial question of law for determination and<br \/>\n\tconsideration of this Court. Identical question is raised for both<br \/>\n\tthe years which is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> Whether the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal is right in law and on facts in restricting the addition<br \/>\nmade by the Assessing Officer on account of suppression of sales on<br \/>\nthe basis of material found during the course of Survey u\/s.133A of<br \/>\nthe Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMrs.Mauna R.Bhatt,<br \/>\n\tlearned Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue has submitted<br \/>\n\tthat the assessee is engaged in a restaurant business, wherein the<br \/>\n\tmain sale is of tea, coffee, bun, muskabun, cold drinks etc. and<br \/>\n\talso derives rental income.  The<br \/>\n\tassessee&#8217;s survey under Section 133A was carried out at the business<br \/>\n\tpremises of the assessee on 24.10.1997 and some books of account and<br \/>\n\tincriminating documents were found. Subsequent to survey, a notice<br \/>\n\tunder Section 148 was issued and accordingly assessment was<br \/>\n\tcompleted under Section 143(3) read with Section 148 of the Income<br \/>\n\tTax Act.  As the books of account found during the course of survey<br \/>\n\tand impounded subsequently were not reflecting true and correct<br \/>\n\tpicture of the business, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of<br \/>\n\taccounts under Section 145 of the Act and estimated the business<br \/>\n\tincome after recording statements of the partners, milk suppliers<br \/>\n\tand suppliers of snacks and other items.  The Assessing Officer made<br \/>\n\tadditions on account of suppression of sales at Rs.25,49,200\/- for<br \/>\n\tthe assessment year 1998-99 and Rs.9,14,413\/- for the assessment<br \/>\n\tyear 1996-97.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t Being aggrieved by the<br \/>\n\tsaid order the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The<br \/>\n\tlearned CIT(A) restricted the addition of Rs.19,42,418\/- for the<br \/>\n\tassessment year 1998-99 and Rs.6,33,068\/- for the assessment year<br \/>\n\t1996-97.  The learned CIT(A) also enhanced the income by Rs.63,237<br \/>\n\tfor the assessment year 1998-99 and Rs.23,380\/- for the assessment<br \/>\n\tyear 1996-97, treating the same as commission expenses not shown by<br \/>\n\tthe assessee.  The CIT(A) also observed that the assessee had shown<br \/>\n\tlumpsum amount as commission expenses and not shown the correct<br \/>\n\tpicture of the commission expenses.  The CIT(A) also confirmed<br \/>\n\tdisallowance of telephone expenses of Rs.5,000\/- in each of the two<br \/>\n\tyears.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBeing aggrieved by the<br \/>\n\torder of the CIT(A) the asseessee filed appeal before the Income Tax<br \/>\n\tAppellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad and the Tribunal restricted the<br \/>\n\taddition to Rs.1,35,160\/- and Rs.3,12,580\/- for the assessment year<br \/>\n\t1996-97 and 1998-99 respectively on account of suppression of sales.<br \/>\n\t The Appellate Tribunal observed that as the Assessing Officer had<br \/>\n\trejected the books of account,  he could not take the figures of<br \/>\n\texpenses from the books. The Appellate Tribunal has taken the G.P.<br \/>\n\tat 25% on the ground that the Assessing Officer in the assessment<br \/>\n\tyear 1994-95 had adopted the G.P. at 25%.  By adopting the G.P. the<br \/>\n\tAppellate Tribunal has calculated the new G.P. which is slightly<br \/>\n\tmore than the G.P. Declared by the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tMrs.Bhatt, learned<br \/>\n\tStanding Counsel appearing for the Revenue further submitted that<br \/>\n\tthe Appellate Tribunal ignored the fact that the Assessing Officer<br \/>\n\thad adopted the G.P. at 52%.  This was based on the documentary<br \/>\n\tevidence found during the course of survey.  Further, the Assessing<br \/>\n\tOfficer had adopted the G.P. on the basis of statement of tea maker,<br \/>\n\tmilk suppliers and suppliers of other snacks. The Assessing Officer<br \/>\n\thad also adopted the figures of expenses not only on the basis of<br \/>\n\tbooks but on the basis of statement of milk suppliers and suppliers<br \/>\n\tof other items.  The Assessing Officer had adopted the figure of<br \/>\n\tG.P. after deducting all the expenses incurred by the assessee.  She<br \/>\n\thas, therefore, submitted that the Assessing Officer was justified<br \/>\n\tand the Tribunal has committed an error while reducing the addition<br \/>\n\tmade by the Assessing Officer on account of suppression of sale.<br \/>\n\tShe has, therefore, submitted that the substantial question of law<br \/>\n\tarises out of the order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tWe have considered<br \/>\n\tsubmissions made by Mrs.Bhatt and we have also perused the order of<br \/>\n\tthe authorities below.  The learned CIT(A) has adopted the G.P. at<br \/>\n\tthe rate of 52% which was similar to one adopted by the Assessing<br \/>\n\tOfficer. He has ignored the fact that in the assessment year 1994-95<br \/>\n\tG.P. was taken at 25% by the Assessing Officer.  The Tribunal has<br \/>\n\tconsidered this aspect in its order and observed that the Assessing<br \/>\n\tOfficer has taken turn over\/sale of Rs.27,25,083\/- on the basis of<br \/>\n\tmaterial found at the time of survey and statement recorded at the<br \/>\n\ttime of survey and later on.  The Tribunal has further observed that<br \/>\n\tthe Revenue has failed to point out any error or calculation or<br \/>\n\tdefect in the calculation of turn over calculated by the CIT(A) for<br \/>\n\tthe purpose of estimation of gross profit.  The Tribunal was of the<br \/>\n\tview that the net sale calculated by the CIT(A) appears to be a<br \/>\n\treasonable and fair estimation of sale.  The Tribunal has,<br \/>\n\ttherefore, restricted the addition made by the Assessing Officer.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSince all these issues<br \/>\n\tare relating to the estimate of turn over and G.P. which are in the<br \/>\n\trealm of appreciation of facts and Tribunal being final fact finding<br \/>\n\tauthority, has arrived at a particular conclusion, we are of the<br \/>\n\tview that no substantial question of law arises out of the order of<br \/>\n\tthe Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBoth these Appeals are<br \/>\n\taccordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>       (K. A. PUJ, J.) (B. N. MEHTA, J.)<\/p>\n<p>kks<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008 Author: K.A.Puj,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Mr.Justice Bankim.N.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/37320\/2008 8\/ 8 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 373 of 2008 With TAX APPEAL No. 374 of 2008 ========================================================= THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I &#8211; Appellant(s) Versus [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-103646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-29T17:34:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T17:34:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008\"},\"wordCount\":962,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008\",\"name\":\"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-29T17:34:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-29T17:34:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008","datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T17:34:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008"},"wordCount":962,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008","name":"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-07-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-29T17:34:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-vs-unknown-on-30-july-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The vs Unknown on 30 July, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=103646"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/103646\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=103646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=103646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=103646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}