{"id":126204,"date":"2009-10-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009"},"modified":"2016-03-01T18:13:37","modified_gmt":"2016-03-01T12:43:37","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: V.G.Sabhahit & Byrareddy<\/div>\n
,Z;ND_:_   '\n\n e*'AA....vUdyambgagh, _. E\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD\n\nDATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF ocToBE;~T\u00e9 2o::)\u00a7'Tj\"'   C *\n\nPRESENT_m_\n\nTHE HON'BLE MRJUSTICZE jsAB_FIA:PfI1~1f\" \n\nANDx _\nTI-IE HONBLE MR. JUSTICEANAVND B*;RA:REv\ufb01)DY\nINCOME TA.}.{':.a'\\PP'?EA;_:V_11\\.IL'3..;2.?.,\"2A.'7\/2006\n\nBETWEEN:\n\nI. The CoIr_irni'\u00a7s;iOne:i% of:  \nKhimj.ibh;Q_y 'C.o1'nme_1v.e_ia}_ Cnrrzplex,\n\nOpp.  Hospital,  A_ '\nBye.1gaufn,559'\u20ac-:;:O0   \n\n2. The Income \" \nWard--1\u00ab,uB'e1gauzjn;    \" .. Appellant\n(By Shri.I\\_\/{,V. S\ufb01dewjachala,.\"Adyocate)\n\nM Teehxzot  l.ndustries,\nB-17',.1r1dustfie's-Esi;ate,\n\n }3e_1gaum;*--    Respondent<\/pre>\n
W    Svhankar, Advocate)<\/p>\n
 T. C ‘gTh*is”CInc0me Tax Appeal is \ufb01led u\/s 260\u00ab~A of Income<\/p>\n
Aejz, 1961, praying to set aside the order passed by the<\/p>\n
ITA.96\/BGM\/2001-0 1. The Appellate Authority by order<\/p>\n
dated 27.1.2001 allowed the appeal by holding,<\/p>\n
admission made during the assessment proceedings:..ca._nho_t”A _<\/p>\n
be treated as admission in the penalty proc~eed:i:11gvs’,\u00bbi:asAthe <\/p>\n
proceedings are separate, and acceptedthe c’on’ten*tio1n.’o_f<\/p>\n
assessee and set aside the order passed byepth7e,Asses;sinlg <\/p>\n
Officer imposing penalty of Rs.ti;’1.\u00a7i.3i’;O()_O\/–ii’   <\/p>\n
4. Being aggrieved- by the of the Appellate<\/p>\n
Authority dated 2′? i8.2QO’1″,’\u00bb the Revenue preferred ag; appeal<\/p>\n
before the  .’fribunal, Panaji Bench,
\nPanaji,_.–(here’1n_’iaiter “”*tQ.7\u00a7as the “T1–jbuna1”), in
\nITA.163\/P1’=IJ\/QOC}if-~._l”ssiessment year 1997-98), and the<\/p>\n
Tribunal order _diat.ed.yi::_3’O.8.2005, dismissed the appeal<\/p>\n
 and,,o\u00a7onfii*med theorder passed by the appeliate authority.<\/p>\n
   aggrieved by the said order passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal,vthelp\ufb01evenue has preferred this appeal.<\/p>\n
 A.  ii The appeal has been admitted on 11.12.2006 by<\/p>\n
  iolpiining that the questions of law raised in the memorandum<\/p>\n
  -ofiappeal would arise for consideration of this court.<\/p>\n
\\,.\/% .\n<\/p>\n
‘7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the
\nappellants and the learned Counsel appearing’…fo;l:”.a;he<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
8. It is contended by the-ll’earned–‘_:Counsel <\/p>\n
appellants, that the appellate  as  2<\/p>\n
Tribunal have failed to considerl’-ethe qlue.stio.n1s-.offact’; as to ”<\/p>\n
whether apart from the  the assesisee has
\nproduced any material t’oxloyf-f.er–  \u00a2’\u00a7\u00a7pL1a\ufb01:a’rion and th\ufb01 Said
\nexplanation is bona\ufb01de,'”arid:’\u00a5th.ere’fore.v’.it.::.i\ufb01i\u00bbas not necessary
\nto impose   to that effect was
\ngiven, the-   be dropped by the
\nAssessing O’t’\ufb01oer’a1aidnlolrncionlsideration of the said question<\/p>\n
of law is it”se__lf”a_ subsltant.ia,i’ question of law as the said order<\/p>\n
_ of lTri’bunall’a-f\ufb01rminlg the order of the Appellate Authority,<\/p>\n
.Withoutvl’gi.vinfg’–.a finding on the requisite condition necessary<\/p>\n
 or setting aside the order of penalty by<\/p>\n
:-1cce’ptin–g. the explanation offered by the assessee, would<\/p>\n
ejrenrder the order perverse and arbitrary. The learned<\/p>\n
 ._l(L’,ounsel has taken us through the order passed by the<\/p>\n
\\5,J’<\/p>\n
Assessing Authority as well as the order passed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal, to substantiate his contention.<\/p>\n
9. The learned Counsel for theA”—.res.pondent,__ <\/p>\n
submitted that the penalty has b’eenillimplose-d <\/p>\n
ground that the assessee has admitted_ that (lathe “incoi’;neaolf=.(<\/p>\n
Rs.15,-42,665\/– pertaining to”~vs.pRr’evious’*–yearr (predated as<\/p>\n
income for the assessrncnpt  He ‘submitted that
\nthe said assessment     admission in the
\npenalty procpeedjings    pertain to the
\nassessrnentll  assessment 1997-98 and
\ntherefore~5~.i(l(v;i.s apaywavriy tax, and therefore, the
\nquestion  (‘Would not arise. He submitted
\nthat the ‘ha.~::ll..accepted the contention of the<\/p>\n
ass’?-lssee. th-atllithepvsaid credits pertain to the year prior to<\/p>\n
.0  \u00abI)n”~–,s__upport of his contentions he relied on the<\/p>\n
0′ following fgiecisiolnsz<\/p>\n
 1\u00b0…’ “Union of India 815 Others Vs. Dharrnendra
\n*  Textiles Processors and Others. (2008) 306 ITR
\n.  277 (SC)<\/p>\n
2. Union of India Vs. Rajasthan Spinning 8r,n<\/p>\n
‘ Weaving Mills. (2009) 224 CTR 1 (SC)\n<\/p>\n
3. Commissioner of Income–‘l’ax Vs. Atul Mohan<\/p>\n
Bindal, (2009) 317 ITR 1 (SC).\n<\/p>\n
K?’<\/p>\n
10.<\/p>\n
11.<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income–Tax vs. Narashima
\nPrasad<\/a> (2001) 250 KTR 852 (Kar).\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. M:\n<\/p>\n
Gujamgadi (2007) 290 ITR 168 (Kar.\n<\/p>\n
Bhadra Advancing (P) Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
447 (Kar).\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax
\nAgricultural Farms L’.=;d. (2)008)   3.84)’<\/p>\n
(Delhi). \u00ab <\/p>\n
Commissioner of \u00bb Income Tax –Vs,~v –iV–iPramesi}wirar k<\/p>\n
Bohra (2007) 208 18 (R’a_i_).’-I  A
\nSudarshan Silks and “Sarees –Vs—-\u00ab Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Income Tax. (2.0’0’8)* 30OV”IT_R 205″(sc)<\/p>\n
Commissioner” _of_ I2ncorQ\u00a2..) Tax –Vs– Suresh
\nChandra Mittal; (2oo1;’25)1′-ma 9;_(sc).
\nComrnissi0n..e;=.._of Vinconie ‘Fax –Vs– Suresh<\/p>\n
Chandra Miittal (2\u00ab0O0)”~2’_4.—.1) {TR 124 (MP)
\nCommi(s_sioVncr’;of Income ‘fax –Vs– Mrs.Ba1jeet<\/p>\n
 Jolviiy)'(20)O3)”-2*53′”ITR’_  (Delhi).<\/p>\n
3;.  Buiideris-i_’anid'”Another –Vs– ACIT. (2004)<\/p>\n
– _2c:33 I’I”i}?-.3 56;2_(sc).\n<\/p>\n
C’on_1misision)eir~\u00ab. of Income Tax –Vs~ Suraj Bhan<\/p>\n
= ‘(2v0o’i).j’2.94i.1fn2.__4-3_1 (P & I–I).
\n‘Commis-si’one-r__ofincome Tax –Vs– Rajnish Nath<\/p>\n
 Aggamaal ‘(20Q_s) 219 cm 590 (9 8:. H).<\/p>\n
“Commissioner<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax –Vs– Hukam
\nChand_Ij_1__ariprakash (2002) 1’72 CTR 271 (P8z.H)
\nof Income Tax –Vs–\n<\/p>\n
 ‘Vamchampigons and Agro Products (2006) 284<\/p>\n
I ~1″rR_ 4.08 (Delhi)\n<\/p>\n
–Cornmissioner of Income Tax –Vs– Rajiv Garg<\/p>\n
. “a,1id Others (2009) 313 ITR 256 (P8514)<\/p>\n
 is  10;.\n<\/p>\n
In response to the argument of the learned<\/p>\n
 Courlsel for the respondent, the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
it  ” -‘a;;ipe11ant has relied upon the following decisions:<\/p>\n
‘x<\/p>\n
9.<\/p>\n
;’g:’:;\u00ab<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax, (2008) v2,1_9-  I’<\/p>\n
1. K17′. 1’\/Eadhusudhanan vs. Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax. 251 ITR 99 (SC) <\/p>\n
2. Union of India 82, Ors. Vs. Dharamendra\ufb02\ufb01extile
\nProvessors & Ors. 305 {TR 277 (sc).__ – ‘<\/p>\n
3. Commissioner of Income Tax.\n<\/p>\n
Madhusudanan. 246 ITR 218 (Ker)}7._  1′<\/p>\n
4. Commissioner of Income Tax \\;”s’.”vT;:i’As’h..olt_Pai,””<\/p>\n
(200?) 292 ITR 5(Kar).:”\n<\/p>\n
11. Having regard to=th_e above ‘said c;o’ri’tc.:1_tioni3, <\/p>\n
find it necessary to re-frame the\u00bb.substaritialiiiqtiestigon of law
\nthat arises for conside:ration.’\ufb02iiland”ithe\ufb01following substantial
\nquestion of law is framed\n<\/p>\n
1.  the  passed by the
\n    “order passed by the
\niiii H _’ of ..–iiiiIr1come Tax (Appeals) is
\neand;_:iari5itrary for nor1~consideration of
\n rnaterialiidnestion of fact?\n<\/p>\n
 2,.’-e  Whetherthe explanation offered by the assessee
\n ivl4i’s::b_onafide and would not attract penalty and<\/p>\n
‘calls for interference in this appeal?<\/p>\n
12’… We have given our careful consideration to the<\/p>\n
  ‘coriteintions of the learned Counsel for the parties, in the<\/p>\n
 -\u00abblight of the principles laid down in the decisions relied upon<\/p>\n
\\\/5<\/p>\n
by the learned Counsel for the parties referred to above, and<\/p>\n
we answer the substantial questions of law in the affirndative<\/p>\n
and in favour of the Revenue for the following r6&&*3:o1’illSyi}’~_’   .<\/p>\n
The fact that in the Return iilezlisy. ythelasslessee :the, it<\/p>\n
assessment year 1997-98, which :h\u00abad7’_been <\/p>\n
explanation was called for regarding trade _credits’;”*’las”jthe ” 9<\/p>\n
same entries were repeated frorn.uejarlie.rzyear”s’.-._ln_1:esponse
\nto the said letter calling  exp1aria:tio”nl,i,tithe assessee did not
\noffer any explanation  said amount of
\nRs. 15,42,665;   ifgisisessirient year 1997-98
\nand  hlasxbeen passed, which is
\nnot in Zdisputed  principles laid down in the<\/p>\n
various decisions  u.pon by the learned Counsel for the<\/p>\n
 resporident, it cannot also be disputed that the admission<\/p>\n
made in assessment proceedings cannot be the sole basis for<\/p>\n
 penalty, which is an independent proceeding.<\/p>\n
Howhevergh ion’; the scrutiny of the order passed by the<\/p>\n
 _’1’ri.bunaI; s which con\ufb01rmed the order passed by the<\/p>\n
 a._tZ’_omn’1:issioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgaum, we \ufb01nd<\/p>\n
 * -\u00bbthat the Tribunal being a final authority on the question of<\/p>\n
KM<\/p>\n
ii ”  . of rietiiv. ,<\/p>\n
IO<\/p>\n
fact, has failed to consider as to whether the explanation<\/p>\n
submitted by the assessee was bonafide within the, meaning<\/p>\n
of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, and therefore,  .<\/p>\n
presumption regarding concealment and”‘conis1eq11e’ntl}5 <\/p>\n
whether the concealment had been <\/p>\n
finding on the said question V-jtfact is’-a icondiitiion; precedent <\/p>\n
for imposition of penalty, as  imposed
\nunder section 271(l)(ici)._._i’\u00a7~nty–l_\ufb01.tl*1e_’g~.satisfaction that the
\nassessee has concealed. his income or
\nfurnished   lisuchilincome. It is well
\nsettled, that’.  material question of
\nfact   issue that arises for
\ndeterrnination rexnder the decision perverse and<\/p>\n
arbitrary and  itseltconstitute a substantial question<\/p>\n
\u00ab l3:ii.”_..,.siv’ii:;i’si..also clear from the perusal of the material<\/p>\n
oniii’eCo=rd, that the Tribunal having not referred to books of<\/p>\n
  accounts and other documents produced by the assessee, as<\/p>\n
 Assessing Officer had no occasion to consider the said<\/p>\n
 *-\u00abblocks of account and the documents produced as he<\/p>\n
K\/’<\/p>\n
proceeded on the basis of the admission made in the<\/p>\n
assessment proceedings,iand wherefore, it is clear”‘thfa–t the<\/p>\n
order passed by the Tribunal is perverse   ~<\/p>\n
non–consideration of the rnateri.a1__ quelstionsj of el\ufb01face-t. <\/p>\n
However, this court in exercise of the :powerl’o_f the appellate<\/p>\n
authority under section 260A cannot’considefllthewqtiestion–.V”<\/p>\n
of fact and it is appropriate thatiilthe meatteris. remitted to the
\nTribunal, which is a final.i:,.autheor{ityl. todecirzle on the question<\/p>\n
of fact and pass fresh orde.r_s’=in’a,ccor’d\u00e9.nc’e\u00a7_vJith law.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
14.   substantial questions of
\nlaw   of the Revenue and
\nagainst; the    the following:\n<\/p>\n
V .h= ORDER<\/p>\n
..   appeal..i,se_a1lcwed.\n<\/p>\n
  passed by the Income Tax Appellate<\/p>\n
inTri’h;ana’i,lfg}?a’n’aji Bench, Panaji, in rm 165\/PNJ\/2001<\/p>\n
(asis’ess1iri,er’rt”llyear 1997-98) dated 30.8.2005, is set aside.<\/p>\n
 _iiThre__ said appeal ITA 165\/PNJ\/2001 (assessment year 1997-<\/p>\n
‘   restored to the \ufb01le of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,<\/p>\n
\\.\/’<\/p>\n
Panaji Bench, Panaji, with a direction to dispose the<\/p>\n
appeal afresh in accordance with law.<\/p>\n
AI} the contentions of the parties are to be  <\/p>\n
urged before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
V _ *sub?””<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009 Author: V.G.Sabhahit & Byrareddy ,Z;ND_:_ ‘ e*’AA….vUdyambgagh, _. E IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF ocToBE;~T\u00e9 2o::)\u00a7’Tj”‘ C * PRESENT_m_ THE HON’BLE MRJUSTICZE jsAB_FIA:PfI1~1f” ANDx _ TI-IE HONBLE […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-126204","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-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 Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-03-01T12:43:37+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=\"8 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-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T12:43:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1491,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-03-01T12:43:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-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 vs M\\\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 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 Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & 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-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-03-01T12:43:37+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T12:43:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009"},"wordCount":1491,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-03-01T12:43:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-techno-links-industries-on-30-october-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 vs M\/S Techno Links Industries on 30 October, 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\/126204","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=126204"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/126204\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=126204"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=126204"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=126204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}