{"id":138420,"date":"1996-02-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-02-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996"},"modified":"2017-02-23T15:40:07","modified_gmt":"2017-02-23T10:10:07","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing &#8230; on 29 February, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing &#8230; on 29 February, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC  (3) 496, \t  JT 1996 (6)\t 68<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: B Jeevan Reddy<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBOMBAY DYEING &amp; MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t29\/02\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nBENCH:\nJEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)\nMUKHERJEE M.K. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1996 SCC  (3) 496\t  JT 1996 (6)\t 68\n 1996 SCALE  (2)812\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t\t\t O R D E R<br \/>\n     These appeals are preferred against the judgment of the<br \/>\nBombay High  Court rejecting  an application  under  Section<br \/>\n256(2) of  the Income  Tax Act.\t The revenue had applied for<br \/>\nreferring the following two questions for the opinion of the<br \/>\nHigh Court:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;(i) Whether  on the  facts and  in<br \/>\n     the circumstances\tof the case, the<br \/>\n     Tribunal professional  charges paid<br \/>\n     by\t the  assessee\tcompany\t to  its<br \/>\n     Solicitors\t  for\t effecting   the<br \/>\n     amalgamation  of\tNawrosjee  Wadia<br \/>\n     ginning &amp; pressing company with it,<br \/>\n     was of revenue nature and should be<br \/>\n     allowed  as   a  deduction\t in  the<br \/>\n     computation of its total income?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (ii) Whether, on  the facts  and in<br \/>\n     the circumstances\tof the case, the<br \/>\n     Tribunal was  justified in\t law  in<br \/>\n     holding that the `assessee-company&#8217;<br \/>\n     was entitled  to a\t deduction for a<br \/>\n     sum of  Rs.2,25,000\/- in respect of<br \/>\n     the contribution  made by it to the<br \/>\n     Maharashtra Housing  Board\t towards<br \/>\n     the constrain  of tenements for its<br \/>\n     workers.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>The facts concerning the first question are the following: a<br \/>\ncompany named Nawrosjee Wadia Ginning &amp; Pressing Company was<br \/>\namalgamated with the assessee-company. In that connection an<br \/>\nexpenditure of\tRs.10,350\/- was\t incurred  by  the  assessee<br \/>\ncompany towards the professional charges paid to the firm of<br \/>\nSolicitors. In\tthe assessment\tproceedings the\t said amount<br \/>\nwas claimed  as a  revenue expenditure.\t The assessee&#8217;s case<br \/>\nwas that  Nawrosjee Wadia  Ginning &amp;  Pressing\tCompany\t was<br \/>\nengaged in  the same  business as  the\tassessee.  In  other<br \/>\nwords,\t the   business\t  of   both   the   companies\twere<br \/>\n&#8220;complimentary&#8221;. The directors of both the companies thought<br \/>\nthat it\t would be  advantageous if  both the  companies\t are<br \/>\namalgamated.  Accordingly,  a  scheme  of  amalgamation\t was<br \/>\nevolved. It  was submitted  that the legal expenses incurred<br \/>\nin connection  with the\t said amalgamation are in the nature<br \/>\nof revenue expenditure. The Income Tax Officer did not agree<br \/>\nnor did\t the Appellate\tAssistant Commissioner.\t On  further<br \/>\nappeal, the  Tribunal upheld  the assessee&#8217;s  contention. It<br \/>\ndisagreed with the Revenue&#8217;s contention that inasmuch as the<br \/>\nsaid amalgamation  resulted  in\t acquisition  of  the  other<br \/>\ncompany by the assessee, which acquisition was in the nature<br \/>\nof acquisition\tof  a  capital\tasset,\tthe  legal  expenses<br \/>\nincurred in  that  behalf  partake  the\t nature\t of  capital<br \/>\nexpenditure. The  Tribunal was\tof the opinion that &#8220;as both<br \/>\nthe companies  were carrying  on complimentary\tbusiness and<br \/>\ntheir  amalgamation   was  necessary   for  the\t smooth\t and<br \/>\nefficient conduct  of the  business&#8221;, it  is an\t expenditure<br \/>\nlaid out  wholly and  exclusively for  the  purpose  of\t the<br \/>\nbusiness of  the assessee.  In view  of the said finding and<br \/>\nalso in\t view of  the decision of this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1043522\/\">Bombay Steam<br \/>\nNavigation  Company   Private  Limited\tv.  Commissioner  of<br \/>\nIncome-Tax, Bombay<\/a>  (56 I.T.R.\t52), we\t are of\t the opinion<br \/>\nthat the  Tribunal was right in its conclusion. The decision<br \/>\nin Bombay  Steam Navigation also pertains to amalgamation of<br \/>\ntwo shipping  companies. The  assessee-company took over the<br \/>\nassets of  the other  company and  part\t of  the  price\t was<br \/>\ntreated\t as   a\t loan  secured\tby  a  promissory  note\t and<br \/>\nhypothecation of  all movable  properties  of  the  assessee<br \/>\ncompany. The  loan was\tto carry  simple interest  at 6\t per<br \/>\ncent. The  question that  arose in the said case was whether<br \/>\nthe interest  paid upon\t the said  loan\t was  deductible  as<br \/>\nrevenue expenditure.  It was  held by this Court that it was<br \/>\nan expenditure\tdeductible under  Section 10(2)(xv)  of\t the<br \/>\nIncome Tax  Act. It was held that transaction of acquisition<br \/>\nof the\tasset was  closely related  to the  commencement and<br \/>\ncarrying on  of\t the  assessee&#8217;s  business  and,  therefore,<br \/>\ninterest paid on the unpaid balance of the consideration for<br \/>\nthe assets  acquired  had,  in\tthe  normal  course,  to  be<br \/>\nregarded as  expenditure for  the purpose  of  the  business<br \/>\nwhich was  carried on  in the  accounting  periods.  In\t the<br \/>\ncourse of  the judgment\t this Court  referred to the earlier<br \/>\ndecision of  this Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/1174163\/\">State of Madras v. G.J.Coelho<\/a> (53<br \/>\nI.T.R. 186)  wherein it\t was held  that the  interest on the<br \/>\namount borrowed\t for acquiring a capital asset is deductible<br \/>\nas revenue  expenditure.  It  is  true,\t that  in  the\tsaid<br \/>\ndecision  this\t Court\tre-affirmed   the  well\t established<br \/>\nprinciple that\tany expenditure\t laid out  for acquiring  an<br \/>\nasset of a permanent character would be capital expenditure,<br \/>\nheld at\t the same  time that  inasmuch as the acquisition of<br \/>\nthe other  company was\tin the\tcourse of carrying on of the<br \/>\nassessee&#8217;s  business,\tthe  interest\tpaid   thereon\t was<br \/>\ndeductible under  Section 10(2)(xv) of the Act. In this case<br \/>\ntoo,  the   Tribunal  has   recorded  a\t  finding  that\t the<br \/>\nacquisition of\tNawrosjee Wadia\t Ginning &amp;  Pressing Company<br \/>\nwas necessary  for the\tsmooth and  efficient conduct of the<br \/>\nassessee&#8217;s   business.\t  Following   the   ratio   of\t the<br \/>\naforementioned decisions  of the  Court, we  hold  that\t the<br \/>\nexpenditure incurred  towards professional  charges  of\t the<br \/>\nSolicitors firm for the services rendered in connection with<br \/>\nthe said  amalgamation was  in the  course of carrying on of<br \/>\nthe assessee&#8217;s\tbusiness and,  therefore,  deductible  as  a<br \/>\nrevenue expenditure.  In this  view of the matter, it is not<br \/>\nnecessary for  us to  deal with\t the other  decisions  cited<br \/>\nbefore us on this question.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Now coming\t to the\t second question  the finding of the<br \/>\nTribunal is that the amount of Rs.2,25,000\/- was contributed<br \/>\nby the\tassessee to  the Maharashtra  Housing Board  towards<br \/>\nconstruction of\t tenements for the company&#8217;s workers. It was<br \/>\ncontended by  the assessee  that the  said  expenditure\t was<br \/>\nincurred why and exclusively on the welfare of the employees<br \/>\nand, therefore, constitutes legitimate business expenditure.<br \/>\nThe  Income   Tax  Officer   and  the\tAppellate  Assistant<br \/>\nCommissioner  rejected\tthe  plea.  The\t Tribunal,  however,<br \/>\nupheld\tthe   assessee&#8217;s   contention\tholding\t  that\t the<br \/>\nexpenditure in\tquestion brought  into existence  no capital<br \/>\nasset to  the assessee-company as the tenements remained the<br \/>\nproperty and  the assets of the Housing Board. The assessee-<br \/>\ncompany acquired  no ownership rights in the said tenements,<br \/>\nit held.  The Tribunal\tfound  further\tthat  there  was  no<br \/>\nobligation on  the assessee-company  to provide\t its workers<br \/>\ntenements constructed  by the  Housing Board  and  that\t the<br \/>\nbenefit of  better and cheaper housing in this case obtained<br \/>\nby the\tindustrial workers  of the  assessee-company did not<br \/>\nconstitute a  direct benefit  of an  enduring nature  to the<br \/>\nassessee. The  expenditure, it observed, was incurred merely<br \/>\nwith a view to carry on the business of the assessee-company<br \/>\nmore efficiently by having a contented labour force.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Dr.V.Gaurishankar, learned\t counsel  for  the  Revenue,<br \/>\nplaces strong  reliance upon  the decision  of this Court in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1895841\/\">Tranvancore-Cochin  Chemicals  Limited\tv.  Commissioner  of<br \/>\nIncome-Tax, Kerala<\/a>  (106 I.T.R.\t 900). The facts of the case<br \/>\nare the\t following: The\t assessee-company was  receiving and<br \/>\ndespatching  material  required\t for  its  purposes  through<br \/>\ntrucks. The  approach road  to its  premises was not a pucca<br \/>\nroad and  was  causing\tdifficulties  and  inconvenience  on<br \/>\nseveral\t  occasions.   Along   with   three   other   public<br \/>\nundertakings, the  assessee approached the Kerala Government<br \/>\nfor laying  a new  road to  that area.\tWhile the Government<br \/>\nbore the cost of acquisition of land and part of the cost of<br \/>\nconstruction of\t the road, the remaining cost was met by the<br \/>\nfour companies\tincluding the  assessee.  The  question\t was<br \/>\nwhether the  said expenditure  is allowable  was  a  revenue<br \/>\nexpenditure. This  Court held  that by\thaving the  new road<br \/>\nconstructed for the improvement of transport facilities, the<br \/>\nappellant  had\t acquired  an  enduring\t advantage  for\t its<br \/>\nbusiness and,  therefore, the  expenditure incurred  by\t the<br \/>\nassessee was of a capital nature. Dr. Gauri Shankar says the<br \/>\nprinciple of  the said decision is equally applicable herein<br \/>\ninasmuch as  provision for  better housing to the assessee&#8217;s<br \/>\nworkers was  ultimately a benefit- and an enduring benefit &#8211;<br \/>\nto the\tassessee. On the other hand, the learned counsel for<br \/>\nthe assessee  brought to our notice a later decision of this<br \/>\nCourt in  L.H.Sugar  Factory  and  Oil\tMills  (P)  Ltd.  v.<br \/>\nCommissioner of\t Income-Tax, U.P.  (125\t I.T.R.\t 293)  where<br \/>\nafter discussing  the  facts  and  the\tprinciple  of  t  he<br \/>\ndecision in  Tranvacore Cochin\tChemicals case\tit has\tbeen<br \/>\nheld that the ratio of the said decision must be confined to<br \/>\nthe peculiar  facts of\tthat case alone for reasons assigned<br \/>\nin that\t behalf. The  decision in  L.H.Sugar Factory and Oil<br \/>\nMills case  was also  a case  where certain  expenditure was<br \/>\nincurred towards  part of  the cost  of construction  of the<br \/>\nroads in the area around the factory and it was held that it<br \/>\nwas a business expenditure. Our attention is also invited to<br \/>\nan other  of this  Court in  the <a href=\"\/doc\/1482921\/\">Commissioner of Income Tax,<br \/>\nMadras v.  T.V. Sundaram  Iyengar and  Sons Private  Limited<\/a><br \/>\n(186 I.T.R  276) wherein  it has  been held  that the amount<br \/>\nadvanced by  the assessee for construction of houses under a<br \/>\nsubsidized industrial  scheme for  its employees  is in\t the<br \/>\nnature of  a revenue  expenditure. In  this  case  too,\t the<br \/>\namount was  advanced to\t the Government\t which purchased the<br \/>\nland in\t its own  name and the buildings constructed thereon<br \/>\nbecame property of the Government &#8211; and not of the assessee.<br \/>\nHaving regard  to the  facts of the appeals before us and in<br \/>\nthe light  of the findings recorded by the Tribunal we think<br \/>\nthat the  principle of\tL.H. Sugar  Factory  and  Oil  Mills<br \/>\n(Supra) and  Commissioner of  Income-Tax, Madras  (Supra) is<br \/>\nmore appropriate  than the  principle  in  Travancore-Cochin<br \/>\nChemicals (Supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>     We are,  therefore, of  the opinion that the High Court<br \/>\nwas justified in rejecting the application under Section 256<br \/>\n(2) of\tthe Income  Tax Act.  The appeals  are dismissed. No<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing &#8230; on 29 February, 1996 Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (3) 496, JT 1996 (6) 68 Author: B Jeevan Reddy Bench: Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: BOMBAY DYEING &amp; MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED DATE [&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-138420","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>The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing ... on 29 February, 1996 - 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-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996\" \/>\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 Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing ... on 29 February, 1996 - 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-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996\" \/>\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=\"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-23T10:10:07+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-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing &#8230; on 29 February, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T10:10:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996\"},\"wordCount\":1612,\"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\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing ... on 29 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-23T10:10:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#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 Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing &#8230; on 29 February, 1996\"}]},{\"@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 Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing ... on 29 February, 1996 - 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-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing ... on 29 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-23T10:10:07+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-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing &#8230; on 29 February, 1996","datePublished":"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T10:10:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996"},"wordCount":1612,"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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing ... on 29 February, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-02-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-23T10:10:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-dyeing-manufacturing-on-29-february-1996#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 Bombay Dyeing &amp; Manufacturing &#8230; on 29 February, 1996"}]},{"@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\/138420","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=138420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}