{"id":123802,"date":"1999-04-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-04-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999"},"modified":"2019-03-04T04:53:39","modified_gmt":"2019-03-03T23:23:39","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Bharucha.J.<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P.Bharucha, R.C.Lahoti<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTERLING FOODS, MANGALORE\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/04\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nS.P.Bharucha, R.C.Lahoti,\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>BHARUCHA.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe Judgment and order under appeal  (190  ITR\t274)<br \/>\nwas  pronounced\t by  a\tDivision Bench of the Karnataka High<br \/>\nCourt on a reference made by the assessee, and\tthe  Revenue<br \/>\nis in  appeal.\t  The  High  Court answered in favour of the<br \/>\nassessee the following question:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;Whether,    on\t   the\t  fact\t  and<br \/>\n\tcircumstances  of  the case, the Tribunal was<br \/>\n\tjustified in law in holding that the  receipt<br \/>\n\tfrom  the  sale\t of import entitlements could<br \/>\n\tnot be included in the income of the assessee<br \/>\n\tfor the purpose of computing the relief under<br \/>\n\tSection 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe identical question had arisen in respect of\t the<br \/>\nsame  assessee\tfor  an\t earlier year and the High Court had<br \/>\nthen answered the question against  the\t assessee  (150\t ITR\n<\/p>\n<p>293).\tThe  assessee  had  not\t carried  the matter further<br \/>\nOrdinarily,  therefore,\t the  Division\tBench  hearing\t the<br \/>\nassessee&#8217;s  appeal  for the later assessment year would have<br \/>\nbeen bound by the earlier decision.  However, it  chose\t not<br \/>\nto do so relying upon the fact that Section 28 of the Income<br \/>\nTax  Act,  1961\t had  been  amended  in the meanwhile by the<br \/>\nFinance Act, 1990  with\t effect\t from  1st  April,  1962  by<br \/>\ninsertion  of  clause  (iiia)  and clause (iiib) with effect<br \/>\nform April 1, 1967, which read as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t(iiia)\tprofits\t on sale of a licence<br \/>\n\tgranted under the  Imports  (Control)  Order,<br \/>\n\t1955,  made  under  the\t Imports  and Exports<br \/>\n\t(Control) Act, 1947 (18 off 1947).\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t(iiib)\tcash assistance (by  whatever<br \/>\n\tname  called)  received\t or receivable by any<br \/>\n\tperson against exports under  any  scheme  of<br \/>\n\tthe Govt. of India.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tAs we shall point out, these amended provisions have<br \/>\nno relevance to the point at issue and the High Court was in<br \/>\nerror  in  relying  thereon  and  not  following the earlier<br \/>\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe facts are :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\tThe  assessee  firm  is\t engaged   in<br \/>\n\tprocessing  prawns  and other sea food, which<br \/>\n\tit  exports  during  the   Assessment\tYears<br \/>\n\t1975-76 and  1976-77.\t It  also earned some<br \/>\n\timport entitlements granted  by\t the  Central<br \/>\n\tGovt.  under an Export Promotion Scheme.  The<br \/>\n\tassessee  was  entitled\t to  use  the  import<br \/>\n\tsettlements  itself  or\t sell  the  same   to<br \/>\n\tothers.\t It sold the import entitlements that<br \/>\n\tit had\tearned\tto  others.  Its total income<br \/>\n\tfor  the  aforementioned   assessment\tyears<br \/>\n\tincluded  the  sale  proceeds for such import<br \/>\n\tentitlements  and  it  claimed\trelief\tunder<br \/>\n\tSection\t 80HH  of  the Act in respect also of<br \/>\n\tthe sale proceeds of the import entitlements.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tSection 80HH, so far as it is relevant,\t read<br \/>\n\tat all relevant times thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;80HH,\t Deduction   in\t  respect  of<br \/>\n\tprofits\t and  gains  from  newly  established<br \/>\n\tindustrial  undertakings or hotel business in<br \/>\n\tbackward areas. (1)  where  the\t gross\ttotal<br \/>\n\tincome\tof  an\tassessee includes any profits<br \/>\n\tand  gains   derived   from   an   industrial<br \/>\n\tundertaking  or\t the  business of a hotel, to<br \/>\n\twhich this section applies, there  shall,  in<br \/>\n\taccordance with and subject to the provisions<br \/>\n\tof this section, he allowed, in computing the<br \/>\n\ttotal  income  of  the\tassessee, a deduction<br \/>\n\tfrom such profits and against  of  an  amount<br \/>\n\tequal to twenty per cent thereof.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tTo  analyses  the provision so far as it is relevant<br \/>\nhere, if the gross total income of an assessee includes\t any<br \/>\nprofits\t and  gains  derived from an industrial undertaking,<br \/>\nthe assessee is entitled to be allowed, in  the\t computation<br \/>\nof  his total income, a deduction from the profits and gains<br \/>\nderived from the industrial undertaking of an  amount  equal<br \/>\nto 20% thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  question,\ttherefore,  was\t whether  the income<br \/>\nderived\t by  the  assessee  by\tthe  sale  of\tthe   import<br \/>\nentitlements was profit and gain derived from its industrial<br \/>\nundertaking of\tprocessing  sea food.  The Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe High Court came to the conclusion that the income  which<br \/>\nthe assessee had made by selling the import entitlements was<br \/>\nnot  a\tprofit\tand  gain  which  it  had  derived  from its<br \/>\nindustrial undertaking.\t For that purpose,  it\trelied\tupon<br \/>\nthe  decision  of  this\t Court\tin  Cambay  Electric  Supply<br \/>\nIndustrial Co.\tLtd.  vs.  CIT (113 ITR 84).  It  was  there<br \/>\nheld  that  the\t expression  &#8220;attributable  to&#8221; was wider in<br \/>\nimport than the expression &#8220;derived from&#8221;.   The  expression<br \/>\nof  wider  import, namely, attributable to was used when the<br \/>\nlegislature intended to cover receipts\tfrom  sources  other<br \/>\nthan the actual conduct of the business.  The Division Bench<br \/>\nof  the\t High  Court  observed that to obtain the benefit of<br \/>\nSection 80HH the assessee had to establish that the  profits<br \/>\nand  gains  were derived from its industrial undertaking and<br \/>\nit was just not sufficient that a commercial connection\t was<br \/>\nestablished  between  the  profits earned and the industrial<br \/>\nundertaking.  The industrial undertaking itself\t had  to  be<br \/>\nthe source  of\tthe  profit.  The business of the industrial<br \/>\nundertaking had\t directly  to  yield  that  profit.\t The<br \/>\nindustrial  undertaking\t had the direct source of the profit<br \/>\nand not a means to earn any other  profit.    Reference\t was<br \/>\nalso  made  to the meaning of word &#8220;source&#8221;, and it was held<br \/>\nthat the import entitlements that the  assessee\t had  earned<br \/>\nwere awarded  by  the  Central\tGovt.\t under the Scheme to<br \/>\nencourage exports.  The source referable to the profits\t and<br \/>\ngains  arising\tout  of\t the  sale  proceeds  of  the import<br \/>\nentitlement was, therefore, the Scheme of the Central  Govt.<br \/>\nand not the industrial undertaking of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tThe  question  arose,  as  aforestated again for the<br \/>\nAssessment Year 1979-80 and the Division Bench of  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  then  basing  itself  on\t the amendment to Section 28<br \/>\nreferred to above, decided otherwise. The  relevant  portion<br \/>\nof the judgment and order under appeal reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t&#8220;We have already extracted  what  was<br \/>\n\tdecided by  this  court.    It cannot be said<br \/>\n\tthat that decision is incorrect.    What  has<br \/>\n\thappened  is  that that decision as a binding<br \/>\n\tprecedent is of little value in the light  of<br \/>\n\tamendments     made\tto     section\t   28<br \/>\n\tretrospectively.  If it is not binding on us,<br \/>\n\tthen at the time we are called upon to answer<br \/>\n\ta  question  for  the  subsequent  assessment<br \/>\n\tyear,  we  must look at the law as it was, at<br \/>\n\tthe relevant time that is  relevant  for  the<br \/>\n\tassessment year 1979-80.  Both the amendments<br \/>\n\thave   been   effected\t from\t1962-63\t  and<br \/>\n\ttherefore, in 1979-80,\tthe  income  received<br \/>\n\tfrom the  Govt.\t   of India by sale of import<br \/>\n\tlicences and incentives for export was income<br \/>\n\twithin the meaning of Section  28  assessable<br \/>\n\tto  tax\t as  income from profits and gains of<br \/>\n\tbusiness or profession.\t It is in that\tlight<br \/>\n\tthat we have to answer the question.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>It appears to us that the later Division Bench did not fully<br \/>\nappreciate  what had been held by the earlier Division Bench<br \/>\nand to what had so held\t the  provision\t of  Section  28  as<br \/>\namended made  no  difference.\t Therefore, in our view, the<br \/>\njudgment under appeal would have to be set aside in as\tmuch<br \/>\nas it did not follow an earlier binding judgment of the High<br \/>\nCourt itself.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tBut  learned counsel for the assessee submitted that<br \/>\nhe was entitled to urge\t since\tthis  matter  related  to  a<br \/>\ndifferent  assessment  year, that the earlier Division Bench<br \/>\njudgment of the High Court was erroneous.  Since we  are  of<br \/>\nthe  view that the earlier judgment was not erroneous, it is<br \/>\nnot necessary to decide whether the assessee could so urge.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn learned counsel&#8217;s  submission,  the\tprofits\t and<br \/>\ngains\twere   derived\t from\tthe   assessee&#8217;s  industrial<br \/>\nundertaking and were, therefore, entitled to  the  deduction<br \/>\nprescribed by  Section\t80HH.\t Learned  counsel  cited the<br \/>\njudgment  of  the  Madras  High\t Court\tin  Commissioner  of<br \/>\nIncome-Tax, Madras-I  vs.    Wheel  and Rjn Company of India<br \/>\nLtd.  (107 ITR 168) which, no  doubt,  is  squarely  on\t the<br \/>\npoint and  holds  in  favour of the assessee.  To quote what<br \/>\nwould be fully explanatory, &#8220;In the fast place as we pointed<br \/>\nout already, the receipt by way of subsidy and\tthe  receipt<br \/>\nby  way of the profits due to the sale of import entitlement<br \/>\nare directly referable to the export of the cycle rims\tmade<br \/>\nby  the\t assessee  and\tconsequently  they can be said to be<br \/>\nprofits and gains derived from the export of cycle rims even<br \/>\non the basis of any theory of proximity.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOur attention was also invited to  the\tjudgment  of<br \/>\nthis Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/330687\/\">National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd.\t vs.<br \/>\nCollector of  Central  Excise,\tBombay<\/a>\t(106  STC 467).\t The<br \/>\nrelevant portion of the judgment is contained in  paragraphs<br \/>\n10,11,&amp; 12 and they read thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t&#8220;10. The dictionaries state that  the<br \/>\n\tword &#8220;derive&#8221; is usually followed by the word<br \/>\n\t&#8220;from&#8221;,\t and  it  means : get to trace from a<br \/>\n\tsource; arise from, originate  in;  show  the<br \/>\n\toriginal or formation of.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t11.   The  use\tof the words &#8220;derived<br \/>\n\tfrom&#8221; in  item\t11-AA(2)  suggests  that  the<br \/>\n\toriginal  source  of  the  product  has to be<br \/>\n\tfound.\tThus, as a matter of  plain  English,<br \/>\n\twhen it is said that one word is derived from<br \/>\n\tanother,  often\t in another language, what is<br \/>\n\tmeant is that the  source  of  that  word  is<br \/>\n\tanother word,  often in another language.  As<br \/>\n\tan  illustration,  the\tword  &#8220;democracy&#8221;  is<br \/>\n\tderived\t from  the  Greek  word\t &#8220;demos&#8221;, the<br \/>\n\tpeople and most dictionaries will  so  state.<br \/>\n\tThat  is  the  ordinary\t meaning of the words<br \/>\n\t&#8220;derived from&#8221; and  there  is  no  reason  to<br \/>\n\tdepart from that ordinary meaning here.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t12.   Crude  petroleum\tis refined to<br \/>\n\tproduce raw naphtha.  Raw naphtha is  further<br \/>\n\trefined,  or  cracked  to  produce  the\t said<br \/>\n\tproducts.  This\t is  not  controverted.\t   It<br \/>\n\tseems  to  us  to make no difference that the<br \/>\n\tappellants buy the raw naphtha\tfrom  others.<br \/>\n\tThe  question  is  to be judged regardless of<br \/>\n\tthis  and  the\tquestion   is\twhether\t  the<br \/>\n\tintervention of the raw naphtha would justify<br \/>\n\tthe  finding  that  the said products are not<br \/>\n\tderived from  refining\tof  crude  petroleum.<br \/>\n\tThe  refining  of  crude  petroleum  produces<br \/>\n\tvarious products at different  states.\t  Raw<br \/>\n\tnaphtha is  one\t such  stage.\t The  further<br \/>\n\trefining, or cracking of raw naphtha  results<br \/>\n\tin the said products.  The said products must<br \/>\n\ttherefore,  be held to have been derived from<br \/>\n\tcrude petroleum.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>We  do\tnot think that the source of the import entitlements<br \/>\ncan  be\t said  to  be  the  industrial\tundertaking  of\t the<br \/>\nassessee.  The source of the import entitlements can, in the<br \/>\ncircumstances, only be\tsaid  to  be  the  Export  Promotion<br \/>\nScheme\t of   the   Central   Govt.  whereunder\t the  export<br \/>\nentitlements  become  available.  There\t must  be  for\t the<br \/>\napplication  of\t the  words  &#8220;derived  from&#8221;, a direct nexus<br \/>\nbetween\t the  profits\tand   gains   and   the\t  industrial<br \/>\nundertaking. In the instant case the nexus is not direct but<br \/>\nonly   incidental.   The   industrial\tundertaking  exports<br \/>\nprocessed sea food. By reason of  such\texport,\t the  Export<br \/>\nPromotion   Scheme  applies.  Thereunder,  the\tassessee  is<br \/>\nentitled to import entitlements, which it can sell. The sale<br \/>\nconsideration therefrom cannot,\t in  our  view\tbe  held  to<br \/>\nconstitute  a  profit  and  gain derived from the assessees&#8217;<br \/>\nindustrial undertaking.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIn the result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment<br \/>\nunder appeal is set aside. The question is answered  in\t the<br \/>\naffirmative  and  in  favour  of the Revenue. No order as to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999 Author: Bharucha.J. Bench: S.P.Bharucha, R.C.Lahoti PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARNATAKA Vs. RESPONDENT: STERLING FOODS, MANGALORE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/04\/1999 BENCH: S.P.Bharucha, R.C.Lahoti, JUDGMENT: BHARUCHA.J. The Judgment and order under appeal (190 ITR 274) was pronounced by a [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-123802","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999 - 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-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999\" \/>\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 Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999 - 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-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999\" \/>\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=\"1999-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-03T23:23:39+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=\"9 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-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T23:23:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999\"},\"wordCount\":1811,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-04-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-03T23:23:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999\"}]},{\"@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 Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999 - 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-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-03T23:23:39+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999","datePublished":"1999-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T23:23:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999"},"wordCount":1811,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-04-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-03T23:23:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-sterling-foods-mangalore-on-15-april-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Sterling Foods, Mangalore on 15 April, 1999"}]},{"@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\/123802","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=123802"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/123802\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=123802"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=123802"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=123802"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}