{"id":106644,"date":"2006-02-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-02-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006"},"modified":"2014-12-07T13:49:47","modified_gmt":"2014-12-07T08:19:47","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 08\/02\/2006\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\nAND\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA\n\nTax Case (Appeal) No.39 of 2006\nand Tax Case (Appeal) Nos., 49 to 42 of 2006\n&amp; TCMP Nos.35 to 37 of 2006\n\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax\nMadras.                         ..      Appellant in all the TCs\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s.India Pistons Limited,\nHusur Garden, Sembium,\nChennai-600 011                 ..      Respondent in all Tcs\n\n\n        Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax  Act,  1961  against  the\ncommon  order  of  the  Income  Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench dated\n15.03.2005 in ITA Nos.247, 1038, 435 &amp; 1157\/Mds\/99 for  the  assessment  years\n1995-96 and 1996-97.\n\n!For Appellant  :       Ms.  Pushya Sitaraman, Sr.S.C.\n\n^For Respondent :               ---\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Delivered by P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The  above  tax  case appeals are directed against the common order of<br \/>\nthe Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA Nos.247, 1038, 435  &amp;  1157\/  Mds\/99,<br \/>\ndated 15.03.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The  Revenue  is the appellant.  The assessee is a manufacturer of<br \/>\nPistons for automobiles and other stationary  engines.    The  assessee  filed<br \/>\nreturns  of  income  for the assessment years 1995-96 and 1996-97, wherein the<br \/>\nassessee claimed inter alia, deduction under Section 80 HHC of the Income  Tax<br \/>\nAct  (herein  after  referred  to  as &#8216;The Act&#8217;) in respect of its income from<br \/>\nexports, deduction in respect of interest on foreign bills (for 1995-96 only),<br \/>\nand deduction of customs duty from closing stock.  The assessing officer found<br \/>\nthat the assessee had excluded the sales tax and excise duty  from  the  total<br \/>\nturnover  for  the  purpose of computation of deduction under Section 80HHC of<br \/>\nthe Act and accordingly he re-computed  the  total  turnover  including  these<br \/>\nelements.  The assessing officer also disallowed the interest on foreign bills<br \/>\nunder  Section  40(a)(i)  as  no  tax was deducted at source, and included the<br \/>\nvalue of customs duty into  the  valuation  of  closing  stock.    Hence,  the<br \/>\nassessee  filed  appeals  before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who<br \/>\nallowed the appeals in  favour  of  the  Revenue  with  regard  to  the  issue<br \/>\ninclusion  of  sales tax and excise duty in the total turnover for the purpose<br \/>\nof 80HHC and other two issues in favour of the assessee.  On appeals,  at  the<br \/>\ninstance  of  the Revenue as well as by the assessee, the Income Tax Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal dismissed the appeals filed by  the  Revenue  by  following  its  own<br \/>\nearlier  orders  in  ITA  1044\/Mds\/98  and  allowed  the  appeals filed by the<br \/>\nassessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.  Aggrieved by the same, the Revenue has preferred the above appeals<br \/>\nraising the following substantial questions of law:<br \/>\n&#8220;1.  Whether in the facts and circumstances of  the  case,  the  Tribunal  was<br \/>\nright  in  holding  that  the  interest  on  foreign  bills  is  a  deductible<br \/>\nexpenditure?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right<br \/>\nin holding that the excise duty and sales tax  should  be  excluded  from  the<br \/>\ntotal turnover to arrive at the deduction under Section 80HHC?\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right<br \/>\nin  holding  that  customs  duty  paid  is  not to be included in the value of<br \/>\nclosing stock?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.1.  With regard to the first  question  whether  in  the  facts  and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the interest<br \/>\non  foreign  bills  is a deductible expenditure, it is not in dispute that the<br \/>\nassessee claimed deduction in respect of  Interest  on  Foreign  Bills.    The<br \/>\nassessing  officer  made  disallowance  by  following  the  earlier assessment<br \/>\norders.  The Commissioner of Income Tax(A) deleted the  disallowance  made  by<br \/>\nthe assessing  officer.    On  appeals  by the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\nallowed the issue in favour of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.2.  It could be found that the conditions for supply of goods by the<br \/>\nnon-resident to the assessee were  that  the  payment  of  purchase  price  in<br \/>\ninstalments  was  to  be  made  with  the  condition  that  the  assessee will<br \/>\ncompensate the supplier by means of interest on the unpaid instalments.    The<br \/>\nunpaid  instalment was not the same as loan and therefore, interest paid could<br \/>\nnot be treated as paid on the loan and hence, deduction of tax at  source  was<br \/>\nnot attracted.  Since it is not the case of the Revenue that interest was paid<br \/>\nwith  reference  to  loan  so  that the requirement of tax deduction at source<br \/>\nwould have been attracted, no disallowance under Section 40(a)(i) can be made.<br \/>\nSection 40(a)(i) contemplates  that  interest,  royalty,  fees  for  technical<br \/>\nservices or other sum shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable<br \/>\nunder  the  head &#8216;Profits and gains of business or profession&#8221;, which reads as<br \/>\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;40.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary  in  Sections  30  to  38,  the<br \/>\nfollowing  amounts  shall  not  be deducted in computing the income chargeable<br \/>\nunder the head &#8216;Profits and gains of business or profession&#8221;,-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)  any  interest  (not  being  interest  on  a  loan   issued   for   public<br \/>\nsub-subscription  before  the  1st  day  of  April,  1938),  royalty, fees for<br \/>\ntechnical services or other sum chargeable under this Act, which is payable-<br \/>\n(A) outside India; or<br \/>\n(B) in India to a non-resident, not being a company or to a foreign company,<br \/>\n* * * * * * * *<\/p>\n<p>That apart, even in the assessment order, the assessing officer mentioned that<br \/>\nthis was interest pertains to foreign bills.  If that be so, since the  amount<br \/>\nwas  not  a  loan  and  the  amount of interest paid was not interest on loan,<br \/>\ndeduction of tax at source, is not attracted and as such,  we  find  that  the<br \/>\ndirections  of  the  Commissioner  as  well  as  the  Tribunal are strictly in<br \/>\ncompliance with Section 42(a)(i) of the Act, which requires no interference.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.1.  In respect of question No.2  viz.,  whether  in  the  facts  and<br \/>\ncircumstances  of  the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the excise<br \/>\nduty and sales tax should be excluded from the total turnover to arrive at the<br \/>\ndeduction under Section 80HHC, this Court in COMMISSIONER OF  INCOME  TAX  VS.<br \/>\nWHEELS INDIA LTD.   (275 ITR 319) and COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS.  SUNDARAM<br \/>\nFASTENERS LTD.(272 ITR 652) held that it is highly impossible  to  accept  the<br \/>\ncontention  that  the term &#8216; turnover&#8217; would include the excise duty and sales<br \/>\ntax components which are all indirect taxes and  which  the  assessee  has  to<br \/>\ncollect  and  pay over to the Government and such statutory dues will not have<br \/>\nany element of profit of business and therefore, the Sales tax and excise duty<br \/>\nare not to be included in the total turnover  while  computing  the  deduction<br \/>\nunder Section 80HHC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.2.   In  view  of the ratio laid down by this Court in the decisions<br \/>\ncited supra, we hold that the sales tax and excise duty are not to be included<br \/>\nin the total turnover, while computing the deduction under Section 80HHC.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.1.  As far as the third question, viz., whether  in  the  facts  and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that customs duty<br \/>\npaid  is  not  to  be  included  in the value of closing stock, this Court, in<br \/>\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS.  ENGLISH ELECTRIC CO.OF INDIA LTD.    (243  ITR\n<\/p>\n<p>512)  held that the liability for payment of excise duty was incurred when the<br \/>\nprocess of manufacture was complete in relation to an  excisable  item.    All<br \/>\npayments and  liability  incurred towards duty were exhibited separately.  The<br \/>\nassessee&#8217;s liability for payment of duty could not be regarded as part of  the<br \/>\nassets  held  by  the  assessee  in  the  form of higher value assigned to the<br \/>\nclosing stock.  A liability could not be  converted  into  an  asset  in  that<br \/>\nmanner.  A liability was an item deductible for the purpose of arriving at the<br \/>\nprofits  for  the year and only when such deduction was given the amount could<br \/>\nbe added to the value of the closing stock.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.2.  In view of the ratio laid down by this  Court  in  the  decision<br \/>\ncited  supra,  we  hold  that  the  Custom Duty on Closing stock are not to be<br \/>\nincluded in the total turnover, while computing the income under Section 80HHC<br \/>\nof the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  In  view  of  the  foregoing  conclusion,  we  find  no  error  or<br \/>\nillegality in the order of the Tribunal and the same requires no interference.<br \/>\nHence,  no  substantial  question of law would arise for consideration of this<br \/>\nCourt.  Accordingly, the tax case appeals are dismissed.   Consequently,  TCMP<br \/>\nNos.35 to 27 of 2006 are also dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>sl<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Assistant Registrar,Income Tax Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\nMadras Bench &#8220;A&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) V, Chennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range I,<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08\/02\/2006 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA Tax Case (Appeal) No.39 of 2006 and Tax Case (Appeal) Nos., 49 to 42 of 2006 &amp; TCMP Nos.35 [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-106644","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-07T08:19:47+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T08:19:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1305,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-07T08:19:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-07T08:19:47+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006","datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T08:19:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006"},"wordCount":1305,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-02-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-07T08:19:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-india-pistons-limited-on-8-february-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S.India Pistons Limited on 8 February, 2006"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/106644","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=106644"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/106644\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=106644"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=106644"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=106644"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}