{"id":153139,"date":"2009-07-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009"},"modified":"2019-03-22T09:42:36","modified_gmt":"2019-03-22T04:12:36","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar Kumar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT on KARNATAKA, <\/p>\n
DATED THIS THE 281″” my 0:? J1, ”       <\/p>\n
PRESEIW \u00ab \u00abM <\/p>\n
THE HOISPBLE MR. JUS’I’iCE \u00e9H*i?LE}1~::\u00a7R};  _<\/p>\n
AND .  ~. :\n<\/p>\n
THE I~iON’BLE MR. J~L:s’:?I_C:E AEQAVTND-,K’E\u00a5:NiAR<\/p>\n
_1_,_fg_,A
\nBETWEEN    1′ A ‘A<\/p>\n
I. The Commi$si9_;1er:\u00e9fII1c\u00a7:1neg:ax,3
\nc.12.Bui1dmg;,.~
\nQueens_..I\u20act>ad;~–._…’;1 ” Q ”   \u00bb
\nBanga1cizfe.–::__  <\/p>\n
2. The I)ept1tj,i_.C91*\u00a31;nissioner-
\nOf Ii1ccme~-Tax;-~ %   = ‘
\nCircI6*.5(‘1),  ‘
\nC.R.Bui.}\u00a7ling, ._<\/p>\n
Queens Road,” ”\n<\/p>\n
Bzirxgai\ufb02re.  %%%%%
\n ” ” ~ APPelIan1:s:\n<\/p>\n
 ‘ Advocate)<\/p>\n
AME:\n<\/p>\n
A ~  – -. V “‘.~3:~.:.P.R;seshac1xi,
\n _ ‘~. ?~\u00a5o.i2″1, Guhnohal Enclavc,
\n  ‘ ”  Qppasitc to Airport White Field Road,
\n‘  Baamgaiore-37.\n<\/p>\n
(By Sri.M.Lava for A\ufb02hankar, Advocate)<\/p>\n
Resmndent:\n<\/p>\n
This Appeal is fled under Section 260A ofincome
\nTax Act, 1961 to aliow the appeal and set aside..Vth5es~o1~der
\npassed by the ITAT, Bangalore ETA No. 1I62jBa ng,I2002
\ndated 29-3-2003 and con\ufb01rm the order of$Vj;he”VV4?if;;3}i>\u20ac1_1i3a~te
\nCommissioner con\ufb01mling the order passed’?b__y the “{)Vepi1ty
\nCommissioner of Income Tax. Cirole—5(1_}–,”Bm’gaIore._  ” ” <\/p>\n
This Appeal coming orx-._ fc-_1’e..he\u00e9:I’iI1g}’  ifiay, ”
\nD.V.3HYLENDRA KUMAR VJ, delivered th\u00a2_*vf;\ufb02}0WiI:.,’gt*~.A *<\/p>\n
Jvbonmlg %  ‘ %
\nAppeal by the  A of the
\nAct. Assessment  is an<\/p>\n
iritdividlial’   ‘his   of income o\ufb01’e-ring to tax<\/p>\n
income’If1’om’his’1\u00a71;1si1*1ess44’a*\u00ab.ctivities etc, apart from eapitai<\/p>\n
gains, _<\/p>\n
 V’  ._  ‘1″;-he  appeal is one relating to the<\/p>\n
  offhe capital gains.\n<\/p>\n
‘A  3.  the accounting period relevant for the<\/p>\n
7-‘\u00ab4__”-\u00bbassessm,ent year, the assesses was holding shares in a –<\/p>\n
   by name M\/s Vishesh Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and<\/p>\n
h V’  about 90% of the share held anti transferred his<\/p>\n
 ‘  en\ufb01re share holding of Rs.40,07,00() in favour of M\/ s SRO<\/p>\n
Infotech (India) Ltd., at a price of Rs.18.75 per share<\/p>\n
yieiding a net receipt of RS.75, 13, 125\/-.<\/p>\n
4. Apart from transferring his entire shagfe’: in<\/p>\n
the company in favour of the buyer the asseesjee.   <\/p>\n
a separate agveement ageed to”ti*ansfe:j  1′. A’<\/p>\n
connection with a soft ware’ thatV’the’–a.sseseee”hiH1Seif.had<\/p>\n
developed, some of the  of   faameiy
\ncomputers and some  omcle Software
\nas also intellectual vxa;l\u00bb’__f:atents and copy<\/p>\n
rights iwl\ufb01ch owned valued as under:<\/p>\n
I.  S  6.75 lacs ~ {Rain lacs)
\n     __ HNR ~ 0.85 lacs ~–\n<\/p>\n
”   deb ~ 7.60<\/p>\n
,,  .4 .  of VT\u00bb 3. 14
\n e   property rights<\/p>\n
–  of patents & copy rights
\n~~ _ owned by Mr.P.R.Seshadri 34.78<\/p>\n
 ,   Oracle Software , 0.48<\/p>\n
Total 45.00<\/p>\n
 ,  (2313259) fi~0,0720OQ!’~<\/p>\n
Totaiirxg a sum of Rs.45 Lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
5. It appears the assesses in the
\ncapital gains from the sale of the:sha1*es_
\nwhether of the company or of
\nthe capita}. gains attributabie..__\u00a7o
\nworked as under:   _    1
\nIncome from long\n<\/p>\n
1) Sale of 400, 709.\n<\/p>\n
Tech.(P)Ltd.    - ,     \n\n@Rs.18.75}icr   :_ %\n     %%75,13,125.oo\n\nLess C%:)st'--Of 4003300.  \n\n<\/pre>\n
Rs. 10\/~’Pcr   V.  “4z3,o7,o00.0o
\nIndexed cdstof 40.0; A709? Jshares
\nPurchased on.4.4′.94 ”\n<\/p>\n
43,4\u00bb7,362.00<\/p>\n
 and”   o\ufb01ered a further sum of Rs.8.78 lakhs as<\/p>\n
A 5.’ gain from thc sale copy right (Computer soft ware)<\/p>\n
   i\ufb01gdicaiing that the: price which he had received for the sale<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
of this item itself was the capital gain as acc\ufb02lftlitt\u00e9fp the
\nassesses the cost of acquisition was nil. ‘ I’ ‘T A4<\/p>\n
6. The assessee, it appears,
\namount of Rs.25,00,000\/- by Wegy   of
\nRs.45 Iakhs which the   ‘\u00a30.\n<\/p>\n
7. ‘ While assessttigi   filed by the
\nassessee, the )\u00a7.ssess1\ufb02n;g”:.F the assessee
\nhad claimed.   as a deduction
\nin 1 of  Act which the Assessing
\nOi\ufb01cer   was not entitled as it<\/p>\n
appeaied to  Oi\ufb01cer that the spouse of the<\/p>\n
 claim’ ed like bene\ufb01t for the sum for which<\/p>\n
 claimed deduction by way of investment<\/p>\n
V V’ _ in the eonsteuotion of the house and also being of the ViCW<\/p>\n
Elie ‘sum of Rs.25,00,000\/- should have been o\ufb01ered<\/p>\n
   gain in the very year and not avoided for offering<\/p>\n
T   the pretext of being advance payment as in the opinion<\/p>\n
of the Assessing Officer the transaction was well over and<\/p>\n
amount was regax\ufb02ed as part of the saie consideration. On
\nsuch premise the Assessing O\ufb01ieer the
\nassessment adding a sum of
\nRs.25,00,000 1- to the capital gai\ufb02  at
\nthe assessee himself and calied   2
\ncommensurate tax. tt  A . \u00bb_ A  L<\/p>\n
8. The    Appellate
\nCommissioner. Before t >   Cemmissioner the<\/p>\n
assessee conte.-atle\u00e9  fjau  of Rs.8.’?’8 lakhs<\/p>\n
was in i@_1_oiaeVce’3’of  and that the amount was not<\/p>\n
– assessableto  gain as the capital gain could<\/p>\n
net worited  dtie  the difficulty in working out the<\/p>\n
  of  of the particular asset and therefore the<\/p>\n
‘act have been added as capital gain though<\/p>\n
V V’ _ ha\u00e9\u00a7”‘beet:1’of;fered by the aseessee himself.<\/p>\n
 ‘A s 4_ 9.7′ it was also urged that the Assessing O\ufb02icer could<\/p>\n
  fgot’ Iiave taken the receipt of Rs.25,()0,000\/— as income<\/p>\n
T  “due to capital gain for the very year as it was only an<\/p>\n
advance payment. It was therefore contended that the<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer   error in adding this ‘_f1’he
\nfurther gound raised is that the assessee
\nbene\ufb01t of Section 541?’ of the Act:-J   ‘ 2   4’ in <\/p>\n
10. The Appellate ”\n<\/p>\n
impressed upon by any
\nassesses, dismissed   <\/p>\n
11. The assesses’ the Income Tax
\nAppellate     The Appellate
\nTribunal  assesses himself having
\n 1   of the new residential
\nbuiidingeutof his:’i:Vfnn<lsV"'generated by the sale of shares,<\/p>\n
mespective of  that the spouse claimed on the very<\/p>\n
V"   piiovisien where the assesses had made from out of<\/p>\n
  for the construction of the building,<\/p>\n
thoijigli on a land belonging to his wife, was<\/p>\n
. .. , _,  . ei:m:\u00a2:me1\u00a7ss entitled to the bene\ufb01t under Section 541?' and<\/p>\n
  ieeeorkiinglyr allowed the deduction claimed by the assesses.<\/p>\n
12. In so far as the computation under the head of<\/p>\n
V x capital gains is concerned, the Tribunal for examining the<\/p>\n
as\/”\n<\/p>\n
addition of Rs.25,00,000\/– that it att1’acteciQ..t3\ufb011 t;jV.’Vp’i;3:1::\u00a7ip1e<\/p>\n
laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT   <\/p>\n
reported in (1931) 123 rm 294%j(\u00e9Cj}I W’here\u00e9n%:;he\u00a5s%ug:;se\u00a7–ne  <\/p>\n
Court had taken the Vi\u00e9\ufb01’  assg\ufb01\u00e9.
\ncannot be subjected to  as”   as thf:\n<\/p>\n
cost of acquisition    computing
\nand themfore the  under Section
\n48 faiis  the facts and also
\nbeing of  of such an asset was
\nmade    Section 55(2) of the Act
\nwhich  book only with effect from<\/p>\n
1-4″-41998 oz1aWe,r_\u00a7;i’s”w\ufb01ich reads as under:<\/p>\n
   of “adjusted”, “cost of<\/p>\n
~ iII1pi’O1?fL’3.ii\u00a3?:’I}t” and “cost of acquisition”. ~– (1)<\/p>\n
A ._ “F_(}I’  of Sections 48 and 49, –<\/p>\n
T?-*?){(35I\u00a51i’3%,*5’i}\n<\/p>\n
(b) “cost of any impr0vement”,–
\n(:\u00a7)”:in relation. to a capital asset being
\n goodwill of a business. [or a right to
\nmanufacture, produce or process any
\narticle or thing] {or right to carry on
\nany business] shall be taken to be nil,
\nand
\n(2) in relation to any other capital asset, –<\/p>\n
E\/V<\/p>\n
(i) where the capital asset
\nthe property of the pxevieias _   ”<\/p>\n
owner or the assessee befQreV_’\ufb02\ufb011e
\n1st day of April, _:{‘l9$’1],.'[*  ‘
\nmeans all expcgnditu\ufb01m <\/p>\n
capital nature AKiI1:Ct1};\u00a3’Cd’-_V’iI1 _  <\/p>\n
making any atiditiens A31} 2
\naiterations to capital asset <3zji"'  "
\nor after the Said _date'—by"theg
\nprevious owner Or. the assesses;<\/p>\n
(ii) in any means an<\/p>\n
_ .e:{q:enditure”V..:of_a{“;;apit1a1′ nature<\/p>\n
    \u00e9;r;3%”‘additions<\/p>\n
V’ _oI9″~a1i;_er-a1f;E,?\u20acTW{“‘a11’d, where the<\/p>\n
 ” V.-;;;ag3ieta1’\u00ab.,_ -asset became the<\/p>\n
‘  “of ‘ihe assesses by any<\/p>\n
. of the..1ixn_pdes speci\ufb01ed in sub-<\/p>\n
. “scc’?:ior1_ (I) of Section 49, by the
\n previous owner,<\/p>\n
 _ gglpcvs \u00a31ot’i.u~::iude any expenditure which
\n‘  is deductible in computing the income
\n ” g:11afgea.Ejie”–}1nder the head “Interest on
\n” _”‘sect11*if7ie$’\u00a7”‘”II1con1e from house property”,
\n‘ ffPI’o1’its’a1:1d gains of business or profession”, ”<\/p>\n
61’ “‘\u00a5.jr1c’:)’me \ufb01om other stmrces”, and the
\nexgire\u00e9ssion “\ufb01mpmvement” shall be<\/p>\n
‘ ” rcpnstrued accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
V’ (2)”For the purpose of Sections 48 and<\/p>\n
49, “cost of acquisition”, –\n<\/p>\n
[(a) in relation to a capital asset, being
\ngoodwill of a business [or a trade mark or
\nbrand name associateci with a business]<\/p>\n
@\/<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
[or a right to manufacture, produce
\nprocess any article or thing [er
\ncarry on any busir1ess}], tenancy Ijghts,’  ‘
\nstage carriage permits or 1oem11o11z*s,- ” ”   V’<\/p>\n
(i) in the case of acqtzisitieir ‘ of [such A ~  A
\nasset by the aseessee’—-by”-purchase ‘ \u00e9
\nfrom a previous ._dwner,”‘means~-._the””‘
\namount of the  p:riee;’a1\u00a3d ‘4<\/p>\n
(ii) in any other case—{net  a’ee.se”
\nfalling undef*\u00ab.su!)~c}.a:1=.5esVV%{i},t0 (iv) of
\nsubsection’ {1} of _Seet:i_oz1 49}._. shall<\/p>\n
be taken tote?-<ettni1;"\n<\/p>\n
and thcre;’c);’e5_  Section 55(2) is not
\nava\ufb02atale fef  year 96-97 there is no way of
\nsuspentiirzg  of the principle as etrolved in<\/p>\n
Sri1:i;\\raee..Shett;;aff.;”easte am directed deletion of addition of<\/p>\n
   also held the addition of Rs.8.’78<\/p>\n
iak\ufb01s is:  to be deleted for the same reason as the<\/p>\n
. ..  .,.’Ve:eQ;1nt”‘x;srae on par with the sum of Rs.25,00,000\/~. The<\/p>\n
   ailowed the appeal on such \ufb01ndings.<\/p>\n
14. It is against this \ufb01nding of the Tribunal, revenue<\/p>\n
is in appeal. The revenue has raised the following<\/p>\n
W\/<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
substantial questions of Law for examination in this<\/p>\n
appeal:\n<\/p>\n
(1) Whether the Tribunal was correc;1.’ tin  –
\nholding that the  4
\nen\ufb01\ufb01ed to claim deduction.’  V  _
\nsection 54F of the Act; on _1;he incame\u00e9’   .
\nderived from sale of  on the _ ”\n<\/p>\n
yound that the _  had emr:m 2
\ninvested on a hG1__1 $\u00bbf; owtxedhy ‘V
\nwife at No.79’7’,=.._ ‘ Rustu:-m_.bagI1,}
\nEangalore  by,-H” . “intck
\noonsidexatitmp. -ceI;tain._  tmilateral<\/p>\n
  cdntragtors, tender
\n‘fQr:’_r_3s_ f0?   construction<\/p>\n
 ——–  mxly \u00e9i\ufb01ectby the”vas$essee and not
\nb3″75’A1<?v'0\ufb02i\ufb01f"'-Pam' and rejected by
\n "4the_'aS54\u00a2Ssif1g"o:f\ufb01cer and certain
\n'  vmuchers"pr0:1ii\u00a2ed for the first time
\nLbefere    'I'ribuna1 and
\ncorzsequently recorded a perverse<\/p>\n
 …. .. \u00ab '<\/p>\n
" ~ V (ii}._ " Whether the Tribunal was correct in
\n  the admission made by the
\n"a.$3'esse's wife Smt.Va1sala Seshadri<\/p>\n
 '  Farm Ne.34A under section 230A
\n of the Act on 12.2.1996 that she
\nwas the absolute ewner of 4,000 sq
\nfeet of house built in No.'?97,
\nRustumbagll, Bangalore owned and
\nbuilt by her out of funds derived
\nfrom sale of her property situatw at
\nI-{AL 21"? stage, Bangalore and<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
consequently recorded a  <\/p>\n
findixxg?\n<\/p>\n
Whether the Tribunalwss’ corfe\u00e9t
\nholding that a sum ‘of
\nderived by the assessee tram sale” of 1 .. <\/p>\n
soft ware was towards ‘edvance.\u00bb:\u00a2;s_dV<\/p>\n
consequently the-same c\u00a3>11ld~ (lot
\nbrought to tax  the <\/p>\n
assessment. year, ‘-  _ ” V -.\n<\/p>\n
Whether the  was ‘*r;0I’\u00a3.’ect in
\nholding tl1;:1t._ijsf:oi’I_1e..\u00bb of””Rs;’2;5 ‘iakhs
\nderix(ed_ by the; assesses team the
\nsale  soft-  wa!s'”I3ot1″;ing but a<\/p>\n
 com   Vgiatentw. right being<\/p>\n
z:ig’,ht:f,to  produce or<\/p>\n
” –p;’e:)ces.}-f;~ “of'”sJ.fIy a’rt’1″c}e”‘or thing under
\n_ .2: anti was not liable to
\nl  as.”the..a’;E3e’1;ded section 55(2){a)<\/p>\n
‘A  of the Act was not applicable to the<\/p>\n
“suites”: assessment year?\n<\/p>\n
vvl_Whetl1er-~tl1e Tribunal was correct in
\nJfxolding that a sum of Rs.8.78 lakhs<\/p>\n
 \u00bb.fi\u20ac\u00a7I’iEfed by the assessee \ufb01om sale of
\nware was nothing but a copy
\ntight and patent right being right to<\/p>\n
l “V manufacture, produce or process of <\/p>\n
any article or thing under a brand
\nname was not liable to tax as the
\namended section 55(2)(a) of the Act
\nwas not applicable ‘:13 the current
\nassessment year especially when the
\nassesses has admitted this amount
\nas its taxable income in the return
\nfiled by him?\n<\/p>\n
rm\u00bb<\/p>\n
 –   itself e<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
15.We have heard Sri. Seshachala learned
\ncounsel appearing for the revenue and f<\/p>\n
for Sri.Shanka3′ for the assessee.<\/p>\n
16. Submission of  iv the <\/p>\n
Tribunal has committed e3′:-4__.eI1’oi’._V_’i:1
\nassessee is emtitled for the  of  that the
\nTribunal failed to    had
\nalso ciaimed the  made for the
\nVery    could not have
\nbeen  ” bene\ufb01t of Section 54F in<\/p>\n
respect L  It is also submitted that the<\/p>\n
 the name of the spouse of the<\/p>\n
 tfxerefore also there cannot be any claim ef<\/p>\n
 the assessee in respect of the construction<\/p>\n
”._of euchia building etc.
\nV’ . ‘_\u00ab1’7. The next argument is that the Tribunal has
\n‘   cemmitted a serious error in law in simply proceeding to<\/p>\n
 apply the principle evolved by the Supreme Court in<\/p>\n
$\/\/<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
Srinivasa Shetty’s case even without examining
\nset of facts and circumstances and it is
\nthat the Tribunal failed to  “‘t._he3’   of AV
\nbringing to tax the c:apita1Vga_i’n a\u00a3~e:fb\u00a7tab1\u00a7tet:aAt they
\nof cepy rights technical
\nhe had property  is tttattvveven before
\nthe amendment to  Act, there is
\nrequirement    of the capital
\ngains to   not examined the
\n proceeded to apply the
\nprincipie   Shetty’s case. It is also<\/p>\n
subllfiitted   cannot be said to be on<\/p>\n
. V.    like intellectual pmperty rights of<\/p>\n
 ieopy rights owned by the assessee and also<\/p>\n
the”‘vah;’e’  soft ware etc. It is therefore submitted that<\/p>\n
   L without examirxatioxa, blindly directed deletion<\/p>\n
  of Rs.Z25,00,{)0()\/- even without going into the<\/p>\n
  ” -qiiestion of ascertaining the capital gain. The other<\/p>\n
‘ ” argument advanced en behalf of the revenue is that in so<\/p>\n
3\/<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
far as the amount of Rs.8.78 lakhs which the assessee
\nhimself had o\ufb01ered as capital gain is concerned, the
\nTribunal was in error in directing deletion of thi.sV’:-ajbmeunt
\nthat too on the reason this was on par
\nRs.25,00,000\/– which the Assessing O\ufb01iC\u00e9I”‘::oVnv.
\npremise that it amounted to’
\necmsideration received in
\nthe assessment year.   i .  it<\/p>\n
18. Submission is  Vhimself admitted<\/p>\n
the reeeipt  and had offered this amount to
\ntax on   the cost of acquisition as nil<\/p>\n
and’ p11 sucii  calculated the capital gain. If there<\/p>\n
V’was”no””adciition, the principle in Srinivas Shetty’s case is<\/p>\n
hf-:3ti’__e1%e:i:'”ai;tra;e’i:ed. This is a case where assessee himself<\/p>\n
had'”assesseti and offered it as capital gain.<\/p>\n
 A.  19;” On the other hand appearing on behalf of the<\/p>\n
_’  assesses S:ri.Lava lmmed counsel for the assessee<\/p>\n
it  ” “vehemently urged that the assessee }:1,a<i'Iightly claimed<\/p>\n
the bene\ufb01t of the pirevisions of Section 54 F in this regard.<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
16<\/span><\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the assessee would take us through
\nthe computation of the amount for mpital gain and has
\nalso drawn our attention to the amount offered hjfway of
\ncapital gain and the bene\ufb01t claimed in resgect
\ngain by the spouse. of the assessee whichs_is’:
\nthe assessment order (page the  I
\nspouse of the assessee had  _v:tie<'_';1?.1\u00e9…1'.(':'\u00a3'.'i(:):i1,
\nunder Section 54}? oniy to  of
\nthe value of the  _the bene\ufb01t<\/p>\n
had iibeen\ufb02 t ' . the assessee was about
\nRs.25,0O,()O{.)\/4  had claimed to the extent of<\/p>\n
Rs.'2\u00a7_),*\u00a7a'5,,61t?.\/~..V_V_V"V1Sobmission of Sri.Lava is that the<\/p>\n
 f~2s.8.78 lakhs c\u00a7a1m' ed by the spouse of the<\/p>\n
 ti:1e"'bene\ufb01t of Section 54?' in fact was not even<\/p>\n
 _ suifieient  the value of the land which was valued at<\/p>\n
,.';1'\u20acAs,;9?IOsV,'{];OO\/- and it was not as though the assessees<\/p>\n
   had any bene\ufb01t in respect of the construction of<\/p>\n
T   building in terms of the provisions of Section 54F' of<\/p>\n
A t  theAe!:.\n<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
20. With regard to the deletion of amounts of<\/p>\n
R$.25,0(),00O\/~ and Rs.s.7s lakhs by the <\/p>\n
learned counsel wouid submit that it is  jtistifited <\/p>\n
the reason the Tribunal had fo1Ic\u00a7V.Veet:_tI:e'”‘raiio   <\/p>\n
the Supreme Court in tlieeaee of .S’I’iniva,e-
\nthe opinion of the  ttxe  peipctple was
\napplicable to the    ttxerefore the
\nappeal has to   respect. He also<\/p>\n
submitted that  ‘”‘rea soIi’ the” matter requires ne-<\/p>\n
  off the Tribunal held the entire
\ncomputetiont of  also to be re~e.v-zamined and<\/p>\n
thetfefo1’e tlte tmincipal shouici have applied in the<\/p>\n
 .C:t\u00a7m1outa\ufb01on of capital gain in respect of sum\ufb02 of<\/p>\n
l or Rs.2s Iakhs both of which are  to<\/p>\n
 .% be’tie1.et;et:1’v’oy’the Tziburxal. In this regard Sri..Lava would<\/p>\n
.4 H ‘A  it is well settlegi en the authority of the rulings
\n    Supreme Court in the matter of taxation that<\/p>\n
T  eozlsent cannot be the basis for fixing the liability which is<\/p>\n
not found in the statutory provisien. The mere fact that<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
the assessea himself had offered a sum of  for
\ntax by itself wauid not put against the  V i\n<\/p>\n
21. Sri.Lava in support
\non the foilowing decisiens  . \u00e9 1 i ii A. ‘V
\n(1) 287 IT}? 271\n<\/p>\n
(ii) 91 rm 18     4
\nSo far as the  i’:6vV.:i:iii\u00e9iv\u00bbV2i:j:)p\ufb01cabi\ufb01ty of the
\nratio of  is concerned While<\/p>\n
it is true ti’-g1:’::..<9:8;)13.s\u00a331'1t;.'iiot'}confer jurisdiction 0;; an
\nassess;_j11g_ at1"t1*i9ifit;,5 toVV"suhje(;t a citizen to irax, over and<\/p>\n
above tlki 'statutory pfa\ufb01i\u00e9izins, the said decision is not<\/p>\n
attifgcted to' ti"1\u00a2i1V')re.\u00a7'.'.eI1t situation for the simple 21633011<\/p>\n
 :t i;\u00ab\u00a7&;;\u00a71;\u00abiiias though by consent the additional liability<\/p>\n
 the statutory liabiiity is created but the<\/p>\n
 ass\u00e9sse\u00e9t  had Worked out the method for<\/p>\n
.4   Au"'V.vi,.'V:c:,~mputvi.\u00e9.ti0n Of capitai gain and had by himself<\/p>\n
  \u00e9xwi\u00e9eiiained both the cost of acquisition and the safe price<\/p>\n
i   when both are available there is no dif\ufb01culty in<\/p>\n
computating the capital gain for the purpose of Sectien 45<\/p>\n
%\/i<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Act and themfam thc Tribuna} was ~ “to
\nezxamine the applicability or otherwise of
\ndown by the Supreme: Court in S\ufb01njv\u00e9\u00e9     <\/p>\n
22. We have perused the
\nrecords inclusive of the order\u00e9–r\u00a7_f’?3gc Fi\ufb01:  L’
\nand tile assessment OI’d\u20ac_,I’.,. the “in~f31C~ and
\nbestowed our attcn\ufb01o\ufb01    S*;’&V2′:t_;;1V:11<,2%:\u00ab*;i<31:a made by the
\nlearned counsel \ufb01at  V V  ' V J<\/p>\n
23. ‘I’1’_1_cV    bene\ufb01t of Section
\n54F  our opinion has to be W
\naraswtzr\u00e9gi  {ind in favour of the assesses for
\nthe mas\u00a7n.._\u00a7hat   may be in the crwncrship of<\/p>\n
assesse\ufb02s spou\u00bbsgV,” \ufb01ev\u00e9rthciess thc Tribunal has mcorcied a<\/p>\n
 \ufb01nding  construc\ufb01on work was in progress<\/p>\n
   till 31-8-1996 and the wife of the \u00a3iS$\u20acS$E’,{\u00a7<\/p>\n
 have  the value of consauc\ufb01on for mortgagt<\/p>\n
  ‘p131’pos\u00e9:s__ \u00e91nd this Wane does not mean that construction<\/p>\n
   out by 6: Wlf\ufb02 of thc assesses out of her own funds<\/p>\n
V.  sq? as to deny the assessett the bene\ufb01t of deduction under<\/p>\n
u  Section 549 of the Act, g<\/p>\n
a\/ <\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
24. If that is to be accepted as \ufb01nding of  we
\nfind no impediment in the assessecfs ciaim
\nSection 54F’, as the assessee vhad-. to  j x
\nextent of Rs.20,96,\u20ac)O8\/– as
\ncost of eonstzruction of  agid we
\n\ufb01nd that wiil fall  “Cost \ufb01r building.
\nAccordingly questionsa’   ggnswereci in the
\naf\ufb01maative     <\/p>\n
25.  the to the addition
\nof   j essessing o\ufb01icer and the
\ndirectioii  (ifs the  to delete this amount is<\/p>\n
conee ‘led, v.\u00a7re’  t\ufb02at the Tribunal has simply preceeded<\/p>\n
  ratio of the decision of the Supreme Ceurt in<\/p>\n
 case to this situation  d .3150 for<\/p>\n
the”ieas1 3n’t;iiat the provision of Section 55(2) had not come<\/p>\n
..   the statute for the assessment year relevant for the<\/p>\n
  ‘eieebtinting period. We find that the Tribunal has in fact<\/p>\n
T  “net examined the facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
V U before applying the principle as evolved in Srinivas Shetty’s<\/p>\n
21<\/span><\/p>\n
case and recording a \ufb01nding that prineipie is attracted to<\/p>\n
the facts and circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n
26. We would like te sound a word   <\/p>\n
Tribunal passing orders on the epreixziset  of xqufesvtiont j <\/p>\n
involved in a case being  auteo\ufb01ty?  of
\nthe High Court or R the V
\nbeing applied is only vzhen   records a
\nfnding about the factstt\ufb01atzicli  of the case and<\/p>\n
\ufb01nds that to  faets  the ratio is<\/p>\n
attracted “the.q”aestion is covered and issue
\ncan be tdeejscied\u00bb.   the ratio of the case as<\/p>\n
entgrteieted    Court or the Supreme Court. In<\/p>\n
, , V . , V _____ _. $3,;\n<\/p>\n
  ‘V ef examinatior\ufb01cts and circumstances of the
\n  way of the ‘{‘rib1ma} directly applying the<\/p>\n
‘.  . ratio”  Qourt of Supreme Court. in the instant
\n.. , ‘;   \ufb01nd the Tribunal had not embarked on the
\n Q~_.’e:V::Vere3’tse of \ufb01nding the decision in so far as the assessee is<\/p>\n
t  “Concerned later recording a \ufb01nding as to the appiicability<\/p>\n
of the ratio. Here again the ratio evolved in the ease in the<\/p>\n
\u00a7\/%<\/p>\n
22<\/span><\/p>\n
facts and circumstances of the case eaxmot blindly applied
\nin ad} situation partieulariy by applying the prineipie as<\/p>\n
evoived by Srinivas Shetty”s case, faiiure to the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 48 of the Act, the factuei  ‘Of <\/p>\n
impossibie to ascertain the i11i’:;i&1~-  the j  <\/p>\n
gaodwill itself might have been
\nvalue. V\u00bb  H . V_  2 ‘ V\n<\/p>\n
27. In this I’ega;’d  djlat A’ ‘the ‘eeubsequent<\/p>\n
judment of the Supre\ufb01ie’  if;1;L’Q’XgR1;E;frishnam1:rt}1y &<\/p>\n
Another Vs)” ‘TvLt3ex},ii:n::_ie4s_ie1;er _’-af Income Tax reported in<\/p>\n
(1939) Ai'”.’..6″E’I’R v41?e(ee;\u00abee\u00a751;Lwmch reliance was placed by<\/p>\n
Sri\ufb01eshachale, Ie arx1 ed counsel for the revenue governs<\/p>\n
   “the present case, more than Srinivas Shetty’s<\/p>\n
A w%\u00a7e”i1ot applicable to the situation on hand.<\/p>\n
‘  289.: ‘1:}’:’\u00a7{1ishnamurthy’s ease as in the case of valuing<\/p>\n
H  ,V :\ufb02tree__1easeV”” \ufb01eld right it was possible to aseertam the
\n   or cast of acquisition which in fact was nil in the<\/p>\n
T  ” mtua\ufb01on and likewise there may be several situations<\/p>\n
where it is possible to ascertain the capital gain by<\/p>\n
\/<\/p>\n
V<\/p>\n
23<\/span><\/p>\n
appiying but if the provisions of Section 48 the maehinery
\nSection fails in turn the chargng section
\na situation Where it is impossible to
\ngain by the impossibility of   oi’ it
\nacquisition or the precise value
\nfrom out of the value of saleiiastiien  fomis
\npart of a compendious of sale of
\nthe particular asset  there is a failure
\nof maCmnery\u00a7”.pI-i\u00e9     it
\nit  applied we find that the
\n Jias  such aspects, simply<\/p>\n
opitg-ed’ t11atab’y..  the principle of Srinivas Shetty’s<\/p>\n
   acidition of Rs.2S,O0,000\/– has to be deleted.<\/p>\n
_s{jev”have to notice that the Tribunal has not<\/p>\n
V i’ . bet\ufb01ereci its ‘ffmd out about the receipt of the amount in the<\/p>\n
 it   .i,.ias\u00absess:t:ient year as indicated  the Assessing Oi\ufb01cer and<\/p>\n
.  as ‘toiwhether it was assessable as the assessee’s sale of<\/p>\n
T   was not 3. receipt, was also not examined.<\/p>\n
26<\/span><\/p>\n
examine the question of tax liability under
\ngain in respect of entire amount of Rs.33,78’E  Z T ><\/p>\n
  e\u00bb\/’\n<\/p>\n
33. Therefore this appeal<\/p>\n
indicated above and the metger
\nto examine afresh only the  ef  on the
\naddition of IQs.25,()O’,i::)\u00a7{},’\/to correctness
\nof the addition pf  direction of the
\nTribune}    total capital gain of
\nthe assess\u00e9i\ufb01r.    V’ <\/p>\n
Sd\/-7
\nJUDGE<\/p>\n
_   _’ V .__sb;g;- ~~  :2.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT on KARNATAKA, DATED THIS THE 281″” my 0:? J1, ” PRESEIW \u00ab \u00abM THE HOISPBLE MR. JUS’I’iCE \u00e9H*i?LE}1~::\u00a7R}; _ AND . ~. : THE I~iON’BLE MR. J~L:s’:?I_C:E AEQAVTND-,K’E\u00a5:NiAR _1_,_fg_,A BETWEEN 1′ […]<\/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-153139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-22T04:12:36+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=\"19 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-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T04:12:36+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3833,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-22T04:12:36+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-22T04:12:36+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009","datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T04:12:36+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009"},"wordCount":3833,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-22T04:12:36+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-p-r-seshadri-on-28-july-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs P R Seshadri on 28 July, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153139","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=153139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}