{"id":140126,"date":"1989-03-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1989-03-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2"},"modified":"2017-10-23T21:28:22","modified_gmt":"2017-10-23T15:58:22","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1333, \t\t  1989 SCR  (2) 179<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: R Pathak<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME\tTAX, BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRASIKLAL MANEKLAL (H.U.F.) &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/03\/1989\n\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nBENCH:\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nMISRA RANGNATH\n\nCITATION:\n 1989 AIR 1333\t\t  1989 SCR  (2) 179\n 1989 SCC  (2) 454\t  JT 1989 (2)\t 16\n 1989 SCALE  (1)719\n\n\nACT:\n    Indian Income Tax Act, 1922--Sub-s. (1) of s. 12B--Amal-\ngamation of two companies resulting in dissolution of one of\nthem and allotment of shares of the surviving company to the\nshareholders  of the dissolved company--Whether\t amounts  to\n'exchange'  or\t'relinquishment' within the meaning  of\t the\nsub-section.\n    Words  and Phrases--Meanings of 'exchange'\tand  'relin-\nquishment'.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    Sub-s. (1) of s. 12B of the Indian Income Tax Act,\t1922\nprovides that tax shall be payable by an assessee under\t the\nhead  \"Capital\tgains\" in respect of any  profits  or  gains\narising from the sale, exchange, relinquishment or  transfer\nof a capital asset.\n    The\t respondent-assessee  who  owned 90  shares  in\t the\nShorrock Co. which stood dissolved under a scheme of amalga-\nmation with another company known as New Shorrock Co., which\nwas  sanctioned by the High Court, was aborted 45 shares  of\nthe New Shorrock Co. in terms of the provisions of the\tsaid\nscheme. During the assessment proceedings for the assessment\nyear 1961-62, the Income Tax Officer omitted to consider the\napplicability  of s. 12B 10 the case of the assessee.  Later\non,  the  Commissioner issued a notice under s. 33B  to\t the\nassessee  stating that the receipt of 45 shares of  the\t New\nShorrock  Co.  \"in exchange\" of his original holding  of  90\nshares\tin  the Shorrock Co. had resulted in  an  assessable\nprofit, and passed an order directing the Income Tax Officer\nto  revise  the\t assessment  and to  include  an  amount  of\nRs.49,350  representing the capital gain resulting from\t the\ntransaction. On appeal by the assessee the Appellate  Tribu-\nnal  held  that the transaction represented neither  an\t ex-\nchange\tnor a relinquishment and, therefore, s. 12B  of\t the\nAct  was  not  attracted. However, at the  instance  of\t the\nRevenue the Tribunal referred the question to the High Court\nwhich answered it in favour of the assessee.\nDismissing the appeals,\n180\n    HELD: The sole question is whether the receipt of the 45\nshares\tof the New Shorrock Co. upon amalgamation by  reason\nof the share holding of 90 shares of the Shorrock Co. can be\ndescribed as an \"exchange\" or a \"relinquishment\" within\t the\nmeaning of s. 12B. It seems plain to us that no exchange  is\ninvolved in the transaction. An exchange involves the trans-\nfer  of property by one person to another  and\treciprocally\nthe transfer of property by that other to the first  person.\nThere  must be a mutual transfer of ownership of  one  thing\nfor  the  ownership  of another. In the\t present  case,\t the\nassessee cannot be said to have transferred any property  to\nany one. When he was allotted the shares of the New Shorrock\nCo. he was entitled to such allotment because of his holding\nthe  90 shares of Shorrock Co. The holding of the 90  shares\nin the Shorrock Co. was merely a qualifying condition  enti-\ntling the assessee to the allotment of the 45 shares of\t the\nNew  Shorrock  Co. The dissolution of the Shorrock  Co.\t de-\nprived\tthe holding of the 90 shares of that company of\t all\nvalue. [183B-E]\n    On\tthe question whether there was\tany  relinquishment,\nthe  decision  must again be against the Revenue.  A  relin-\nquishment takes place when the owner withdraws himself\tfrom\nthe  property and abandons his rights thereto.\tIt  presumes\nthat  the property continues to exist after the\t relinquish-\nment. Upon amalgamation, the shares of the Shorrock Co. lost\nall value as that company stood dissolved. [183E-F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  1905-06<br \/>\n(NT) of 1974 and 3414 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n<p>    From the Judgment and Order dated 24.7.73 and 7.9.81  of<br \/>\nthe  Bombay High Court in I.T.R. No. 19 of 1967, 66 of\t1964<br \/>\nand 27 of 1972 respectively.\n<\/p>\n<p>    B. Datta, Additional Solicitor General, M.B. Rao and Ms.<br \/>\nA. Subhashini for the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Soli J. Sorabji, Harish Salve, Mrs. A.K. Verma and\tJeel<br \/>\nPeres for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\n    PATHAK,  CJ.  The assessee is a Hindu  Undivided  Family<br \/>\nderiving  income  from interest\t on  securities,  dividends,<br \/>\nproperty  and dealing in shares. In 1941 the  assessee\tpur-<br \/>\nchased\ta share of the Shorrock Spinning  and  Manufacturing<br \/>\nCo. Ltd., hereinafter referred to as<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">181<\/span><br \/>\n&#8220;the  Shorrock\tCo.&#8221;,  of the face value of  Rs.  1,000\t for<br \/>\nRs.3,307.  Later this share was split into 10 shares of\t Rs.<br \/>\n100 each, and from time to time a total of 80 shares of\t the<br \/>\nface value of Rs. 100 each was issued to the assessee by way<br \/>\nof  bonus shares. In consequence, on 31 December,  1959\t the<br \/>\nassessee  owned\t 90 shares in the Shorrock Co. of  the\tface<br \/>\nvalue of Rs. 100 each.\n<\/p>\n<p>    There  is another company called the New Shorrock  Spin-<br \/>\nning  and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. to which reference  may  be<br \/>\nmade as &#8220;the New Shorrock Co.&#8221;. It was decided to amalgamate<br \/>\nthe  Shorrock Co. with the New Shorrock Co., and upon  peti-<br \/>\ntions  filed under s. 39 1 and s. 394 of the Companies\tAct,<br \/>\n1956  the Gujarat High Court made an order dated 23  Septem-<br \/>\nber,  1960 directing meetings of the share holders  of\tboth<br \/>\nthe  companies. The meetings were held on 27  October,\t1960<br \/>\nand the scheme of amalgamation was approved. On 25 November,<br \/>\n1960  the High Court sanctioned the scheme  of\tamalgamation<br \/>\nand declared that the scheme would be binding on members  of<br \/>\nboth the Companies.\n<\/p>\n<p>    Under  the scheme of amalgamation, the  undertaking\t and<br \/>\nall  the property rights and powers as well as all  liabili-<br \/>\nties  and  duties of the Shorrock Co. were to  stand  trans-<br \/>\nferred and vest with effect from 1 January, 1960 in the\t New<br \/>\nShorrock Co. The scheme of amalgamation provided further for<br \/>\nan increase in the share capital of the New Shorrock Co. and<br \/>\nit  permitted the creation of 14,625 new ordinary shares  of<br \/>\nthe  face value of Rs. 125 each of the\ttransferee  company.<br \/>\nThe  newly created shares were to rank pari passu  with\t the<br \/>\nexisting  shares of the transferee company in all  respects.<br \/>\nUnder  the  scheme the New Shorrock Co., as  the  transferee<br \/>\ncompany,  was directed to allot to members of  the  Shorrock<br \/>\nCo.,  the  transferor company, one share in  the  transferee<br \/>\ncompany for every two shares of the transferor company\theld<br \/>\nby  them. The order of the Court directed that the  Shorrock<br \/>\nCo.  should  file  a certified copy of the  order  with\t the<br \/>\nRegistrar of Companies within 14 days for registration,\t and<br \/>\non such certified copy being delivered the transferor compa-<br \/>\nny would stand dissolved and the Registrar of Companies\t was<br \/>\nto place all documents relating to the transferor company on<br \/>\nthe  file relating to the transferee company and the  folios<br \/>\nrelating  to the two companies were to be  consolidated\t ac-<br \/>\ncordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>    During  the\t assessment proceedings for  the  assessment<br \/>\nyear  1961-62,\tthe previous year being the  financial\tyear<br \/>\nended  31  March,  1961, the Income  Tax  Officer,  although<br \/>\napprised  of the fact of the scheme of amalgamation  and  of<br \/>\nthe acquisition by the assessee of 45 shares of the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">182<\/span><br \/>\nNew Shorrock Co. omitted to consider the applicability of s.<br \/>\n12B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922. On 21 January,\t1964<br \/>\nthe Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice under s.\t 33B<br \/>\nof  the Act to the assessee stating that the receipt  of  45<br \/>\nshares of the New Shorrock Co. &#8220;in exchange&#8221; of his original<br \/>\nholding\t of 90 shares in the Shorrock Co. in  December\t1960<br \/>\nhad  resulted in an assessable profit, and this\t aspect\t had<br \/>\nbeen  overlooked by the Income Tax Officer when\t making\t the<br \/>\nregular\t assessment, and, therefore, he proposed a  revision<br \/>\nof  the assessment. After heating the assessee, the  Commis-<br \/>\nsioner of Income Tax passed an order dated 29 January,\t1964<br \/>\ndirecting  the Income Tax Officer to revise  the  assessment<br \/>\nand  to\t include  an amount of\tRs.49,350  representing\t the<br \/>\ncapital gain resulting from the transaction of the  acquisi-<br \/>\ntion  of  45 shares of New Shorrock Co. in place of  the  90<br \/>\nshares held in Shorrock Co. On appeal by the assessee before<br \/>\nthe  Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the\t Appellate  Tribunal<br \/>\nheld  that the transaction represented neither\tan  exchange<br \/>\nnor  a relinquishment and, therefore, s. 12B of the Act\t was<br \/>\nnot attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t  At the instance of the Revenue the  Appel-\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      late Tribunal referred the following questions<br \/>\n\t      to the High Court for its opinion:\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t    &#8220;1.\t Whether  on the facts\tand  in\t the<br \/>\n\t      circumstances   of  the  case,  the   sum\t  of<br \/>\n\t      Rs.49,350\t could be assessed in the  hands  of<br \/>\n\t      the  assessee as capital gains as\t having\t ac-<br \/>\n\t      crued  to the assessee by exchange  or  relin-<br \/>\n\t      quishment as provided for under section 12B of<br \/>\n\t      the Act?\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   2. If the answer to the above question is<br \/>\n\t      in  the affirmative, whether the said  sum  of<br \/>\n\t      Rs.49,350 was assessable in the year 1961-62?&#8221;<br \/>\n    Before  the High Court the Revenue did not contend\tthat<br \/>\nthe  transaction constituted a sale or a transfer,  and\t the<br \/>\nparties confined themselves to the point whether the  trans-<br \/>\naction\trepresented an exchange or a relinquishment for\t the<br \/>\npurposes  of  s. 12B. The High Court took the view  that  no<br \/>\nexchange can be said to have taken place on the allotment of<br \/>\nthe  45 shares of the New Shorrock Co. under the  scheme  of<br \/>\namalgamation. Nor, in the opinion of the High Court, did  it<br \/>\nconstitute  a relinquishment. In the result, the High  Court<br \/>\nanswered  both\tquestions  in favour  of  the  assessee\t and<br \/>\nagainst the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t      The  relevant  portion of s. 12B\tof  the\t Act<br \/>\n\t      provides:\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">\t      183<\/span><\/p>\n<p>\t      S.  12B(1)  Capital gains. The  tax  shall  be<br \/>\n\t      payable by an assessee under the head &#8220;Capital<br \/>\n\t      gains&#8221;  in  respect of any  profits  or  gains<br \/>\n\t      arising  from the sale, exchange,\t relinquish-<br \/>\n\t      ment  or transfer of a capital asset  effected<br \/>\n\t      after  the 31st day of March, 1956,  and\tsuch<br \/>\n\t      profits and gains shall be deemed to be income<br \/>\n\t      of  the previous year in which the  sale,\t ex-<br \/>\n\t      change, relinquishment or transfer took place.<br \/>\n    The\t sole  question\t is whether the receipt\t of  the  45<br \/>\nshares\tof the New Shorrock Co. upon amalgamation by  reason<br \/>\nof the share holding of 90 shares of the Shorrock Co. can be<br \/>\ndescribed as an &#8220;exchange&#8221; or a &#8220;relinquishment&#8221; within\t the<br \/>\nmeaning\t of s. 12B of the Act. It seems plain to us that  no<br \/>\nexchange  is  involved in the transaction. An  exchange\t in-<br \/>\nvolves the transfer of property by one person to another and<br \/>\nreciprocally  the transfer of property by that other to\t the<br \/>\nfirst  person. There must be a mutual transfer of  ownership<br \/>\nof  one thing for the ownership of another. In\tthe  present<br \/>\ncase,  the assessee cannot be said to have  transferred\t any<br \/>\nproperty to any one. When he was allotted the shares of\t the<br \/>\nNew  Shorrock Co. he was entitled to such allotment  because<br \/>\nof his holding the 90 shares of Shorrock Co. The holding  of<br \/>\nthe  90 shares in the Shorrock Co. was merely  a  qualifying<br \/>\ncondition entitling the assessee to the allotment of the  45<br \/>\nshares of the New Shorrock Co. The dissolution of the  Shor-<br \/>\nrock  Co.  deprived  the holding of the 90  shares  of\tthat<br \/>\ncompany of all value.\n<\/p>\n<p>    On\tthe question whether there was\tany  relinquishment,<br \/>\nthe  decision  must again be against the Revenue.  A  relin-<br \/>\nquishment takes place when the owner withdraws himself\tfrom<br \/>\nthe  property and abandons his rights thereto.\tIt  presumes<br \/>\nthat  the property continues to exist after the\t relinquish-<br \/>\nment. Upon amalgamation, the shares of the Shorrock Co.,  as<br \/>\nhas  been mentioned earlier, lost all value as that  company<br \/>\nstood dissolved. There is no relinquishment.<br \/>\n    The\t connected  cases raise similar questions,  and\t are<br \/>\ndealt with accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>    In the result, we agree with the view taken by the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt, and dismiss these appeals with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>H.L.C.\t\t\t\t\t      Appeals\tdis-\nmissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">184<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989 Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1333, 1989 SCR (2) 179 Author: R Pathak Bench: Pathak, R.S. (Cj) PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: RASIKLAL MANEKLAL (H.U.F.) &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/03\/1989 BENCH: PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) [&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-140126","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 Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989 - 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-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2\" \/>\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 Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989 - 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-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2\" \/>\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=\"1989-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-23T15:58:22+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=\"10 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-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989\",\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-23T15:58:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2\"},\"wordCount\":1345,\"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-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1989-03-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-23T15:58:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#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 Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989\"}]},{\"@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 Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989 - 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-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1989-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-23T15:58:22+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989","datePublished":"1989-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-23T15:58:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2"},"wordCount":1345,"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-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1989-03-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-23T15:58:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-rasiklal-maneklal-h-u-f-ors-on-29-march-1989-2#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 Rasiklal Maneklal (H.U.F.) &amp; Ors on 29 March, 1989"}]},{"@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\/140126","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=140126"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/140126\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=140126"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=140126"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=140126"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}