{"id":11307,"date":"2009-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009"},"modified":"2017-08-30T12:56:27","modified_gmt":"2017-08-30T07:26:27","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) &#8230; on 7 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) &#8230; on 7 August, 2009<\/div>\n<pre>ITR No.187 of 1996                                                1\n\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                    CHANDIGARH.\n\n                                                  ITR No.187 of 1996\n                                           Date of decision: 7.8.2009\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana\n\n                                                        -----Applicant\n                             Vs.\nM\/s Bhagyoday Investment (P) Limited, Ludhiana\n\n                                                      -----Respondent\n\n\n\nCORAM:-      HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n             HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY\n\n\nPresent:-   Mr. Krishan Mehta, Sr.Standing Counsel for the   revenue.\n\n              Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the assessee.\n\n\nAdarsh Kumar Goel,J.\n<\/pre>\n<p>1.           This reference has arisen from the order of the Income<\/p>\n<p>Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dated<\/p>\n<p>9.3.1995 in ITA No.411 of 1990 relating to assessment year 1985-<\/p>\n<p>86. The question referred is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the<br \/>\n               case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the<br \/>\n               assessee be treated as industrial company and that the<br \/>\n               tax be charged at low rate applicable to an industrial<br \/>\n               company?&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>2.           The assessee company derives income from dealing in<\/p>\n<p>shares, inter-alia, of M\/s Munjal Castings, which is engaged in<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> ITR No.187 of 1996                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n<p>manufacture and processing of goods. The assessee took the plea<\/p>\n<p>that its income from shares exceeding 51% being from the shares<\/p>\n<p>of a company which was engaged in the manufacture, the assessee<\/p>\n<p>should be treated as an &#8216;industrial company&#8217; for which rate of tax<\/p>\n<p>was lower than non industrial company. The Assessing officer did<\/p>\n<p>not accept this plea. On appeal of the assessee, it was argued that<\/p>\n<p>the Assessing Officer had wrongly charged tax at rate applicable to<\/p>\n<p>non industrial company. The revenue contested this plea by<\/p>\n<p>submitting that the assessee could not be considered to be<\/p>\n<p>industrial company as per definition in the Finance Act, as it was<\/p>\n<p>not engaged in the business of generation or distribution of<\/p>\n<p>electricity or any other form of power or in the carriage of<\/p>\n<p>passengers or goods by roads or inland waterways or any other<\/p>\n<p>activity specified therein. The assessee was merely a dealer in the<\/p>\n<p>shares of M\/s Munjal Castings on which basis it could not be<\/p>\n<p>treated to be an industrial company. The CIT(A) upheld the plea of<\/p>\n<p>the assessee only on the basis of its earlier order for the assessment<\/p>\n<p>year 1984-85. The Tribunal also upheld the same for the same<\/p>\n<p>reason.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.           Learned counsel for the assessee points out that in the<\/p>\n<p>order of assessment, there was no discussion and the order of the<\/p>\n<p>CIT(A) was based on its earlier order for the assessment year<\/p>\n<p>1984-85. Similarly, order of the Tribunal was also based on the<\/p>\n<p>order for the earlier year from which a reference was made to this<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> ITR No.187 of 1996                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n<p>Court and was answered against the revenue being ITR No.287 of<\/p>\n<p>1995<a href=\"\/doc\/1595589\/\">(Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana v. M\/s<\/p>\n<p>Bhagyoday Investment Pvt. Limited, Ludhiana)<\/a> decided on<\/p>\n<p>21.5.2008.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.           Learned counsel for the revenue points out that the<\/p>\n<p>earlier decision of this Court is based on an erroneous concession<\/p>\n<p>made by him with regard to the matter being covered by judgment<\/p>\n<p>of Delhi High Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1170190\/\">CIT Delhi I v. Bharat Ram Charat Ram<\/p>\n<p>P Limited,<\/a> (1986) 157 ITR 199, as he was not having record with<\/p>\n<p>him and he stands by the statement made by the departmental<\/p>\n<p>representative       before the CIT(A) that the assessee was not<\/p>\n<p>engaged in business of generation or otherwise so as to fall in the<\/p>\n<p>definition under Section 2(8)(c) of the Finance Act, 1984 or<\/p>\n<p>Explanation appended thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.           The definition of &#8216;industrial company&#8217; in the above<\/p>\n<p>provision is as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>               &#8220;Industrial company&#8221; means a company which is<br \/>\n             mainly engaged in the business of generation or<br \/>\n             distribution of electricity or any other form of power or<br \/>\n             in the carriage by road or inland waterways, of<br \/>\n             passengers or goods or in the construction of ships or<br \/>\n             in the execution of projects or in the manufacture or<br \/>\n             processing of goods or in mining&#8221;.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;Explanation: for the purpose of this clause<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> ITR No.187 of 1996                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>                 i) a company shall be deemed to be mainly engaged<br \/>\n                 in the business of generation or distribution of<br \/>\n                 electricity or any other form of power or in the<br \/>\n                 carriage by road or inland waterways, of passengers<br \/>\n                 or goods or in the construction of share or in the<br \/>\n                 execution of projects or in the manufacture or<br \/>\n                 processing of goods or in mining, if the income<br \/>\n                 attributable to any one or more of the aforesaid<br \/>\n                 activities included in its total income of the previous<br \/>\n                 year (as computed before making deduction under<br \/>\n                 Chapter VIA of the Income Tax Act) is not less than<br \/>\n                 fifty one percent of such total income.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>6.           It is settled law that order on a question of law based on<\/p>\n<p>erroneous concession of counsel cannot be accepted as a precedent<\/p>\n<p>(see: P.Nallamalli v. State, 1999(6) SCC 554, para 7, <a href=\"\/doc\/1688802\/\">Union of<\/p>\n<p>India and others v. Mohanlal Likumal Punjabi and others<\/a>,<\/p>\n<p>(2004) 3 SCC 628, paras 8, 9).\n<\/p>\n<p>7.            A perusal of the above definition shows that to qualify<\/p>\n<p>as industrial company, the assessee itself must be engaged in the<\/p>\n<p>nature of business specified in the definition i.e. generation or<\/p>\n<p>distribution of electricity or carriage of passengers or goods or<\/p>\n<p>construction of ships or in mining. It has nowhere been stated that<\/p>\n<p>the assessee is engaged in any such type of activity. The statement<\/p>\n<p>made before the CIT(A) as noted in para 3.1 was not factually<\/p>\n<p>disputed by the assessee. The same is extracted below:-<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> ITR No.187 of 1996                                                  5<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                     &#8220;I have no objection to the entertainment of the<br \/>\n                     additional ground of appeal in case the assessee is<br \/>\n                     able to convince your honour as to why this<br \/>\n                     ground of appeal could not be taken up in the<br \/>\n                     original memo of appeal. However, on merits the<br \/>\n                     assessee has no case since the present company<br \/>\n                     cannot be considered to be an industrial company<br \/>\n                     in view of the definition of the industrial company<br \/>\n                     given in the Finance Act for the year under<br \/>\n                     consideration. The assessee Co., is not engaged in<br \/>\n                     the business of generation or distribution of<br \/>\n                     electricity or any other form of power or in the<br \/>\n                     carriage of passengers or goods or in the<br \/>\n                     manufacture or processing of goods or in mining.<br \/>\n                     Simply because the assessee company happens to<br \/>\n                     be a partner in M\/s Munjal Castings, Ludhiana, it<br \/>\n                     does not follow that by this process the company<br \/>\n                     itself becomes an industrial company. The only<br \/>\n                     provision in the Income Tax Act is that the share<br \/>\n                     income from the firm would be treated as the<br \/>\n                     business income of the assessee and would be<br \/>\n                     assessed as such and nothing further follows from<br \/>\n                     this.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.           Only plea taken by the assessee was that it was having<\/p>\n<p>income from shares of a company which may qualify to be an<\/p>\n<p>industrial company.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.           Thus, the question is whether merely because an<\/p>\n<p>assessee derives income from shares of a manufacturing company,<\/p>\n<p>it will become industrial company on that ground.<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> ITR No.187 of 1996                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n<p>10.          In view of clear language of the statute, we are unable<\/p>\n<p>to hold that merely by having share income from an industrial<\/p>\n<p>company, the assessee         receiving such income will become<\/p>\n<p>industrial company.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.          We may now refer to judgment of the Delhi High Court<\/p>\n<p>relied upon on behalf of the assessee. In that case, a finding was<\/p>\n<p>recorded that the assessee was a partner with a manufacturing<\/p>\n<p>company and on that ground, it was industrial company. Relevant<\/p>\n<p>observations are as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>            &#8220;4. The Tribunal in the course of its decision stated that<br \/>\n            this question was common for assessment years 1967-68<br \/>\n            and 1970-71 and had depended on whether income<br \/>\n            derived by the assessee from a partnership with M\/s<br \/>\n            Electrical Industries Corporation was to be used as a<br \/>\n            qualification. We have examined the definition and find<br \/>\n            that a company is deemed to be an &#8216;industrial company&#8217;<br \/>\n            if its income from manufacture is more than 50 percent.<br \/>\n            As the finding is that at least 51 percent of the income<br \/>\n            was from the partnership which was concerned with the<br \/>\n            manufacture of super-enamelled cooper wire, we find<br \/>\n            that there is no error in the conclusion of the Tribunal<br \/>\n            and we accordingly answer question No.3 referred to us<br \/>\n            in the affirmative on the ground that the company was an<br \/>\n            &#8216;Industrial Company&#8217; even if the said 51 percent or more<br \/>\n            of the income came from a manufacture in partnership.<br \/>\n            Whether that income came from partnership or not<br \/>\n            makes no difference.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> ITR No.187 of 1996                                             7<\/span><\/p>\n<p>12.          In the present case, share income cannot be treated as<\/p>\n<p>equal to income of a partner or a manufacturer. The assessee<\/p>\n<p>cannot, thus, be held to be an industrial company.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.          Accordingly, the question referred is answered in<\/p>\n<p>favour of the revenue and against the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.          The reference is disposed of accordingly.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n                                        (Adarsh Kumar Goel)\n                                                  Judge\n\n\nAugust 7, 2009                              (Daya Chaudhary)\n    'gs'                                          Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Punjab-Haryana High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) &#8230; on 7 August, 2009 ITR No.187 of 1996 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITR No.187 of 1996 Date of decision: 7.8.2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Ludhiana &#8212;&#8211;Applicant Vs. M\/s Bhagyoday Investment (P) [&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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) ... on 7 August, 2009 - 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-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009\" \/>\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=\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-30T07:26:27+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\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; vs M\\\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) &#8230; on 7 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T07:26:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1377,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M\\\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-30T07:26:27+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; vs M\\\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) &#8230; on 7 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@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":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) ... on 7 August, 2009 - 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-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-30T07:26:27+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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) &#8230; on 7 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T07:26:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009"},"wordCount":1377,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax ... vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) ... on 7 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-30T07:26:27+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-bhagyoday-investment-p-on-7-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax &#8230; vs M\/S Bhagyoday Investment (P) &#8230; on 7 August, 2009"}]},{"@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\/11307","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=11307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}