{"id":130961,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-20T14:48:40","modified_gmt":"2018-10-20T09:18:40","slug":"sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Ram Mohan Reddy<\/div>\n
 \n\nVVEVV\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,   .\n\nDATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF IJ*'\u00bbEpBRU2f1'{{\"it';.::O'4_?.:!)' 1f.)v\".V  \"\n\nBEFORE\nTHE I-ION'BLE MR.JUsTIc;5:_  \n\nWRIT PETITION 1\\.I0.137A'9j:0F'r200.9!'fTfIT).E\n\nBETWEEN\n\n EA'iL1:>1v2i15La:. N~..G. Road.\n\nSri. Dinakar Ulial. V 1 H    '\nProp. M\/s DevchanCE\u00ab\u00ab..COns'Eru<:ti--Ohs'~ "  2 \nAged about 51.y.ea.rs,f _ _  _ E \u00ab-- \nThokkottu Perfnaxs-f;ui*V.  . "  \n\nMangalore ~5575..O"}7'.:_;,_ 3 V\n\n..PETITIONER\n[By Sajia   Lava. Advs.)\nAND{U.  ' V ' U ' "\n\nCO!j1''}I''l'.i_ASSiOI'111'1ga_lO1'Es  O01 .\n\nH '--{ Es'y.ST'i.'VM3VLA'E:=SEs%Tacha1ia, Adv.)\n\n..RE3SPON D ENT\n\n' ..  Writ. Petition is fiied under Ariicies 226 and 227\n\n  O01' i}'1\u20ac'7~=.COE1SU'{.Llf.iOI1 Of lnctia praying 1,0 issue a writ: Of\n \u00a3761'-I;.1<:)1"a1*i and :set--asI'de the Ordel" Of the rOsp()nden1 E0 the\n\n'   \u20acXT.Ii"I'}E it is Ewld against. The petitioner in\n 5F.N'O.19\/CIT\/WING\/OSWOQ dated }.5.5.2008. vide Anr1exure~\n\n_._A.\n\nTHIS P}E7'l'}'l"!ON COP\u00bb\/IiNG ON FOR I3RL.I"IEARING IN "B'\nGROUP '}'I"iiS E-BAYC '}'I'"i{\u20ac COURT MADE "INK i*'OLL,OV\\7ING:\n\n\n\n \n\nwell--merited, fully justified and  \n\ninterference. contends that.:'t.'he.gtrilrcularfinstriuction7.\n\nbeing an external aid, imposing-._a condition "denying\n\ninterest on refund of   \napplication to C(v)l\u00ab1Czl'OIl\u20ac'.."'fl:l.'%::'; 'ud'el._ay,  'for 'proper\nadministration of the   destructive\nof the   overrides the\nprovisions   contended that sub-\n  to the facts of the\n of interest on refund since\n\nthe _ procle'edi'11gs'V--. relating to refund were delayed for\n\n  re'as~on.s avttributab'i'e'to the petitioner.\n\n\u00abA  Plaiting heard the learned counsel for the\n\npar"tiesf,_ perused the pleading and examined the order\n\n  impugned. the following two questions arise for decision\n\nnfialdngz\n\n{ii Whether the condition to deny interest: on\n\nrefund amount due to an assessee under the Act,\n\nM\n\n\n\nrcfundv.oi_"excess amount of tax paid by the assessee or\n on h"is__ behalf for any assessment year. The form of\n cl.ai_rn for refund and limitation are prescribed by\n\n___Section 239 of the Act while delay in filing a belated\n\n \n\n-6-\n\nwhile admitting an application \ndelay in making a claim: \nSection 237 of the   \ninstruction No.12'\/'2vl:):.O3g    and\n13\/2006 dated.  2 '":Board'. is\ninconsistent  Section 244--A\n\nof the \n\n(ii)  Vx'l\u00e9}et:helrg 'indt-l1'c._factts and circumstances, the\n re_spond.e--n_t"'was_ujvust.itied in denying interest on\nbelated reefundyctlaimed for the assessment year\n\n 22 IA995--96;._y2bvy  order impugned?\n\n22  237 of the Act provides for claim of\n\nreturn for refund claim in cases of genuine hardship\n\ncould be condoned by the 'Board under Section 119 of\n\nM\n\n\n\n \n\nn\n___;\n\nthe Act. Interest on refund  admissible sLib'1\u00bb--se<?ti:on. (I)\n\n \n\nof under Section 2-ri4~A of the Act. while  \n\ninvests in the Chief Con1missi'oner .or1,Comi*ni_ssiVonerV;'. 21 7.\n\n graze.\/air  \n\njurisdiction to deny interest: for"the._perio<:i=;inrefunciv, $015\n\nreasons attributabie to the'a.s"sessee\u00a7'~ ._  \n\n8. The iini1'ta'ti.on_to gla-im for refund in\nrespect: of the.'--asses:stri'ent  i9'9.3}96, as in the case\nof the p.e:ti:t.iO"?7Ift_3:lT*;_ vi.rfc:1s:1'3...i.C}';j\u00a7f.'l\u00bb99T?' in accordance with\nSeCt'ioi1 in the statute book. prior\nto ainendi'inei'1"i; E537'  'No.18\/2005. The petitioners\n\nciagini uwhezi'  on 8.9.1997, was delayed by five\n\n   seven days which was sought to be\n\ni"'~.e'ondoIied-._  filing the appiication on 2i.O9.i998\n\ninu\\}oi;i'nAg.S'eCt:ion i i9{2){b) of the Act. showing suf\ufb01cient\n\n2  ., AALi'\u00e91tiS\u20ac.\n\n9. Section 119, as existing prior to the\n\namendment by Act 23\/2004. reads thus:\n\n\n\nAHA\n\n""119. Instructions to  :"\n\na_uthorities.-----(l] The Board \n\nto time. issue such o1'ders. if1s{'.1*'s\u00ab1(:ti0n s--.g;3:;\u20acI;w_ \n\ndirecI':i0r1s to other I:r1c0r11Ve\u00abV_'l':;:xhautheriiies  V'\n\nit may deem fit for ..prope'1' e1c1V.er_1}1;'11_is"\u20ac..1':"z':-'1't.i~z)r':1\nof this Act, and suc'_::}"1"., aaV:11019itie$:V.anv\u00e9d an\nother persons.;:'_empl\u00a7ye(;lVL"11:1a\ufb01he exechhon of\nthis Act, shah V   such\norders.'.iii'11.$t1"L;L'eV\ufb01e:i1V\u00e9s  of the\n\n \n\n P1'"Ov'i~cife._vcl t.hat _h'0.. sL:eh. dfders, instructiorls or\n\n"'-:1ii'e(\u00e9t'i<)11' :-2. f$.ha1i_  'i,\u00a7i:.s:,1ed----~\u00bb\n\n_{-:1.) x x X ..\n\n(2) V%g?'i{h0L1t. prejudice to the generality of the\n\n.. \ufb01gl-egoing powerm\n\n(b) the Board may, if it considers it desirabie\n01" expedient so to do for avoidi:1g genuine\n\nhardship in any case 01* class of Cases, by\n\nM\n\n\n\n-9-\ngeneral or speeiai order, authorise any\nincome 'i'a.x aL1t.hoi.-it,y. not being a \nCommissioner (Appeals) to \napplication or claim for any \ndeduction. refund or anymother  _\nthis Act after the  \nspe(:i;fied by or undei' th4i;:~:A"Act \nsuch application of  ariciV..(.ie'a1\n\nsame on merits in E-i('C.'..ti\u00a7)I':A.Ci'c1_I'1'C_,\u20ac with' i:e1w;_.'3\n\n A 'p~;?,ain'i\u00bbre'adi'1';g of the aforesiated si:atuio1'y\n\nprovisioim-\u00ab..it'visVL}eyoi1'd"hVcavi} of doubt that the Board, is\n\nei\ufb01powered Hf}!G1'1 ' time to time to issue\n ofdefe _\/ ti J;I;i3,{_3fiQl'1S \/ iilstructions to income Tax\n\nA__uthoriiie\u00abs;iV' as it: may deem: fit: for proper\n\nadm'i;1i'1atrai.io1a of the Act; and more particularly under\n\n  (b) of SLibvS\u20acCTLiOI1 (2) of Section 119, for avoiding.\n\nI\/, .\n\nis . . . . ti"\n__:genui13e hardship 111 any cirase, authorise 3any income\n\n"Fax authority to adrzlii. an appimatiori or claim for any\n\nexemption, "deduction refund or any other relief under\n\nU4\n\n\n\n-311\n\nthe Act after the expiry of the period  or\n\nunder the Act for makirig such 'c1];)pli(?'c'1tlC)1'1'Hi')I'vCl\u00a31ii'fi.\u00e93:11ClV4_\n\ndeal with the same on merits\u00bb'i'n~aettordantx\u00e9 with law.'\n\nThe statute does not indicate "vpes-tigirig a'j.duri.Sdief:_io.11'in\n\nthe Board to issue instruetiopris in. is\nstated in Sectionr1_l9(2}['b}:l_:'itu""i_s well" settled that\n\nihstructions\/circulars\/.guid-el'ines_"ai=e'binding to the\n\nextent they, ere':~nc)t\u00a7;Aineorisistent. the provisions of\nthe A(f?.".'~ ., \n'Il_.4' tilt' is  said that the power of the\n\nBojardis en'larged rvhere the provisions of the Act bar\n\n i'ii1AAc;o'm.e Tax authorities from entertaining any\n\n _ap_plit:'at_io'i*1wQ2"for claim of any exemption, deduction,\n\nrefuneli o'r":a11y' other reliefs due under the Act for the\n\nV "re.as0Vn that the time limit specified For the making of\n\n'At-Vstieh application or claim has expired. Thus, the Board\n\n" is empowered to authorise the Commissioner or Income\n\nTax Officer to admit such application or claim even after\n\nN\n\n\n\n-17\n\ninstruczrtion or direction camiot override the\n\nthe Act which would be destnictive  kriovvim \n\nprinciples of law as the same:=_woLild} rea'1ly"--ahio.i;1itcto\n\nfivinf owers to a dele'f:3{te_d aLit~ho'i'i.t f.;o"even altmeiicllli.\n\nthe provisions of the law er12icted.by the \n\n13. ThlZ'S viewed",:fSea;tri.on.7_fauthorises the\n\nBoard to issue i'1r';.VV\narises as to the period:=.A1to:-hie} \nshall be decided byythe Chief:Comrri.iiss'ionerA.\"\nor Commissioner  \n\nshall be final. \n(3) x X x \n\n(4) The provisi.oI1s-  t'l1ois_set:tio'n' shall apply\n\nin i'espe\u00e91jt\u00bbi'oi'assessh1er1t,_s\"forthe assessment\n\n year\" on the 151 day of April,\n\nX1989, and \u00a7\u00a7'L1bSeqt\u00a3eI1t assessment years.\"\n\n15\"). hi it tihus Clear that. interest. on refunds\n\nA upayable _Wb,_en an amount is due to the assessee under\n\n ._  to exclusion of the period of delay\n\no\u20ac:t:as.ioned and attributable to the assessee as may be\n\n* decided by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner of\n\n ineome Tax whose decision is final. The statute\n\n'loornpels the denial of interest on refund if the\n\np1'0(;:eedi1'1gs resL1lt,i1'1g in the refund are delayed for\n\n \n\n\n\n_E.'1\n\nreasons aitribiitable to the assessee. The_;v'p1'0\\g'isi0'_a_4is\n\nmade applicable to \u00a31SS\u20acSSIIi\u20acI1tS.'\"f0'1'\u00ab::'~ti;i'\u20ac\"_y'\u20ac:a1\"\ufb01\n\nCommencing from 1.4. 1989.\n\n16. Having not.i(7ed\"'vi\u00abi.fi1.e statutmfy 'proixisions,\n\nindisputedly the  iii'\"'e'x.\u00e9;1'c:iS-<3' of its jijrisdiction\n\nunder Section 1 19 of tfi-eAV_A,iiti  670 dated\n\n26.10.93<\/pre>\n
,    'Oificer to admit\nappiicati\u00e9ii  making a belated\nrefu1: id9'\"9V    a resuit of tax\n and advance tax where\n\n<\/pre>\n
such. refu1id._d0e:5 net exceed  Ten Thousand upto Rs.<\/p>\n
  ijalihvi’ with  approvai of Chief Commissioner of<\/p>\n
1   any assessment. year. Admittedly, there<\/p>\n
w”a_s r1_0’cdi’1dii.ioI1 to deny interest on refund arising out<\/p>\n
 ii a belated claim.\n<\/p>\n
17. The beiaied refund Ciairn of the petitioner<\/p>\n
-“:bei11g Rs.2i41_.505\/– made on 8.9.i997 and an<\/p>\n
application 21.9.1998 to eoncioiie the delay of five<\/p>\n
A (1<\/p>\n
months and seven days, was required to be Cons’idered<\/p>\n
and orders passed thereon by the Boewd <\/p>\n
reasonabie time. However. the__B.oard _ps’sVse.o\u00a7\u00bbai1V’_order\u00ab ”<\/p>\n
dated 8.1.2007 rejecting the <\/p>\n
rightly setmaside in WP   fort<\/p>\n
fresh consideration by ordevr–dtit.ed”-2A8.1r2O0.8.,f\u00a7<\/p>\n
I8. Undoubted.ly:.”_~.th.e_\ufb01\u00a3%o2ird instruction
\nNo. 12 \/20033.’;  _ \u00a330; 1  i”e}atting to procedure
\nfor  condone delay in eiaimirig
\nrei’tmi%1,  thi’e-.,Cf’hiei;Htliommissioner for Income
\nTax  in  claim from Rs. One Lakh<\/p>\n
toyfixire Eakhs.”‘  to denied of interest on the belated<\/p>\n
  ianc\ufb01that. however, the instructions would not<\/p>\n
cover z\ufb01ses prior to assessment year 199697.<\/p>\n
 Yet again the Board issued another set of<\/p>\n
ismsjtruction bearing No.13\/2006 dated 22.12.2006,<\/p>\n
Verihaneing the eons_ide1*atior1 of refund limits upto Rs.5O<\/p>\n
  ‘ “iakhs by Corr.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
-.\n<\/p>\n
J z;\n<\/p>\n
20. Therefore. in a proceeding to c,}.ai.{n..’re’f1ifid<\/p>\n
under Section 237, filed in time K<\/p>\n
Section 239 of the Act. 1*esuitin\u00a7 <\/p>\n
reasons attributable to the assessee; whetii.erV’Vwho;1iy’iof<\/p>\n
in part. the period of deiay’V’Vi’is_Ri::)_ beV”e:\u00bb:cVluVded’:\u00a7from the
\nperiod for which i11te_i”e–st   decided by the
\nChief CO1’I11’I11’S$’iOI1\u20ac’I” ()f,:I_I’l.C()iTi’ld  -iprovided under<\/p>\n
Sub–Sectioni_.:  s;\u00a7;:mi’:i  “t’h’c\u00a7 Act.<\/p>\n
   proceeding to ciaim refund
\nundei*’~_Secti’onV’23s?’d  the time prescribed by<\/p>\n
Section   on the \ufb01ling of an application<\/p>\n
  ..Sec1;AiVoI’1~——i\u00ab19(2](b] to condone the deiay, and<\/p>\n
 V *re’s’a.iti-nig’:.i’i*:._:Vrefund. is deiayed for reasons attributable<\/p>\n
1;o””:hev–..’asse’?ssee, whether whoiiy or in part, the period of<\/p>\n
 *d:3__lay to be excluded from the period for which<\/p>\n
7.iVn’te:1rest is payable under Sub–Section (2) of Section<\/p>\n
N ” ‘”2\u00ab<i4–A of the Act. M<\/p>\n
.iii<\/p>\n
22. Sub-Section (4) of Section  _.iih~e<\/p>\n
section applicable to assessments for..the:”vass.essnief1:.V <\/p>\n
year commencing from I_.~\u20aci.1989.\n<\/p>\n
relating io denial of i11t,e.t*e:c3?_t on 9′ –rv_e’i\u00b0ur1d:a*”i’r1Apespfbcti of;<\/p>\n
belated claim, being fully i:og;gn.:r1 by’sL1’b’~’seci\ufb01ion (2) of
\nSection 244%. of ti1e_:Actt;.’ it\/;_’cant:of’~ibut be concluded
\nthat the ‘Board.’. exereisii1\u00bbgVa.A’ j’1,1ris\u00a7li:(\u00a7ti.oi1 under section
\n119 of    Act  could 9 fiot have issued
\nir1stru_(_:_t:VioI’is’\/’oifgiversg\/dii;eet:1oi1s\/eircuiars, imposing a
\nc0r1d:’i__tior_1– Vde:13Iii’1’g>[‘*i;i’\u00e9erest on refund, so as to
\nsuppierneni {he law.\u00bb 9 Slouch a condition in derogation of<\/p>\n
the\u00a7’ste1iute,i1ot ‘for a proper administratiori of the<\/p>\n
. Act’ . _v ‘F.haff’e.o13ditior1 by way of instruction contained in<\/p>\n
  13\/2006 overricies sub-section (2) of<\/p>\n
Seitiiiori 2944~A of the Act and is in exe1′(:ise of a power<\/p>\n
2 Airiiotvested in the Board. and hence inconsistent. The<\/p>\n
first question is answered in the affirmative.<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
.720.\n<\/p>\n
was deiayed for reasons attributable to the assessee so<\/p>\n
as to exclude the period from <\/p>\n
filing the application to condone the deiaj~.in’   <\/p>\n
belated return, upto 1.7.2008′;:’wheneV\u00e9”._ghe’refii:iid’V’Vyva\u00abs<\/p>\n
adjusted against the petiti.on_er’s income  dikes f”or\u00b0thea<\/p>\n
assessment year 1994-95.\n<\/p>\n
25. Reiianee ‘p1;_aeed.u* ;upon}._the decision in<\/p>\n
GUJARAT    COMMISSIONER or<\/p>\n
1NcoMe:;%rAx.   ‘rm 396] by the Assessing<\/p>\n
Authority  t’heV”‘petiifi’o’r1er interest on the refund
\nelairnbgd\/\u00abtheorder_:irr1_:f5’tig1r1ed, in my considered opinion,<\/p>\n
is ‘fuI1ft1″101.i”1’f a;)p.i.ieation’\u00b0’oi” mind. i say so because, their<\/p>\n
 A of the””Ghjarat High Court, having regard to<\/p>\n
the faets” of the ease. held that the Board was not<\/p>\n
V is jiistified in rejecting the claim for refund on the ground<\/p>\n
that a case of genuine hardship was not made out by<\/p>\n
it the petitioner and delay in claiming the relief was not<\/p>\n
satisfactorily explained. more particularly when the<\/p>\n
Elm<\/p>\n
returns could not be filed in time due to of<\/p>\n
the Officer who was looking afterthe taviati-dli_i\u00bbrnatters of. <\/p>\n
the petitioner therein. Their loirdshipls lu.rt,’h:e1’  tiiat.<\/p>\n
the phrase ‘genuine hardi:i;hli’pf in lSeetion T’ Q._{Q.}\u00a3b]..3of <\/p>\n
Act should have been eons_t:r1:1’ecl ‘libera1lly’;__’l’h:it decision
\nis not in relation to”dleonyi-ngi}li}ote’r.est.l on belated refund<\/p>\n
but a case o;fiI’\u00ab::_i’us2;illl’to’ eoiidon_e t.hedlelay in filing the
\nbelated
\n 7o:rder,_’inij;\u00a7ugnVedvfin so far as it relates to<\/p>\n
denying. ‘intereetl*:}n”~.tl”re ‘amount. of refund by merely<\/p>\n
foilowing\u00e9the imposed in the Circular 670<\/p>\n
ci.;i%i_\u00a2ai’\u00ab26.1’o;ii.993_read with Instruction No.12\/2003<\/p>\n
2 ;’d.:;ttedv’80.i:l'{)_,_2003 and 13\/2006 dated 22.12.2006 is<\/p>\n
=ocomrai3;r*;it<\u00a7o::iaw, arbitrary and unsustainable. The 2""<\/p>\n
qnest'ion is E111SW\u20aci'E3Cl in the iaegative.<\/p>\n
27. in the result, the petition is allowed in part.<\/p>\n
The order dated l5~O5~2008 Annextn*e\u00ab”A” in so far as it<\/p>\n
rela1:es to denying int.ei.’est on Rs.2,4l.50.3\/-\u00bb beiI e<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010 Author: Ram Mohan Reddy VVEVV IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, . DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF IJ*’\u00bbEpBRU2f1′{{“it’;.::O’4_?.:!)’ 1f.)v”.V ” BEFORE THE I-ION’BLE MR.JUsTIc;5:_ WRIT PETITION 1\\.I0.137A’9j:0F’r200.9!’fTfIT).E BETWEEN EA’iL1:>1v2i15La:. N~..G. Road. Sri. Dinakar Ulial. V 1 H ‘ Prop. […]<\/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-130961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010 - 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\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-20T09:18:40+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=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T09:18:40+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":926,\"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\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-20T09:18:40+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010 - 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\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-20T09:18:40+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T09:18:40+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":926,"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\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010","name":"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-20T09:18:40+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-dinakar-uillal-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri Dinakar Uillal vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 24 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/130961","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=130961"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130961\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}