{"id":153908,"date":"2003-11-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003"},"modified":"2014-03-19T07:46:35","modified_gmt":"2014-03-19T02:16:35","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) &#8230; on 25 November, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) &#8230; on 25 November, 2003<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 25\/11\/2003\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU\nand\nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU\n\nT.C.No.99 of 2000\n\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax,\nTamilnadu-III, Madras.   ..Applicant\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s Packwell (Karnataka) Industries,\n6,Cathedral Road,\n7,madras-86.    ..Respondents\n\n\n        Tax Case reference under Sec.256 (2)  of  the  Income-tax  Act,  1961,\nagainst  the JUDGMENT of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Madras,\ndated 19.12.1995, made in R.A.No.154\/Mds\/1996 in ITA No.1866\/ Mds\/1987.\n\n^For Applicant :  Mrs.Pushya Sitaraman\n\n!For respondent :  Mr.P.P.S.Janarthanaraja\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Delivered by R.JAYASIMHA BABU, J.)<\/p>\n<p>        The assessment year in this case is 1982-83.  The question referred is<br \/>\nas to whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the remuneration paid  by<br \/>\nthe assessee firm to one of it&#8217;s partners who was a partner in his capacity as<br \/>\nkarta  of Hindu Undivided Family was not taxable in computing the total income<br \/>\nof the assessee firm and  that  the  provisions  of  Section  40  (b)  of  the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Act are not attracted.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.   The amount that was disallowed was paid to one of the partners as<br \/>\na technical consultation fee.  Though the assessing officer and the  appellate<br \/>\nauthority  did  not  regard  that  payment  as falling outside the description<br \/>\ncontained in Section 40 (b), the Tribunal accepted the assessee&#8217;s  appeal  and<br \/>\nheld that  that  payment was a permissible deduction.  Learned counsel for the<br \/>\nassessee submitted that a partner in a firm can have more  than  one  role  to<br \/>\nplay and that he can, if he is a person possessed of expertise, make available<br \/>\nsuch  expertise  to  the  firm  for  consideration  and  that consideration so<br \/>\nreceived by him would be consideration received by an  expert  and  not  by  a<br \/>\npartner.   In  support  of his submission, he placed reliance on a decision of<br \/>\nthis Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/595676\/\">Commissioner of Income  Tax  v.    Surendra  Manilal<br \/>\nMehta<\/a> (154 ITR 264).\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   This  Court  has  far  back  as  in  the year 1965 in the case of<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/1734785\/\">A.S.K.Rathnaswamy Nadar Firm v.  Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a> (58 ITR 312)  had,<br \/>\nafter  considering  the  language  contained  in  Section  10  (4)  (b) of the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Act 1952, which is similar to  the  language  employed  in  Section<br \/>\n40-(b)  of  the  Income  Tax  Act, 1961 as it stood during the assessment year<br \/>\n1982-83 observed thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;It  is  manifest  that  this  sub-section   indicates   an   absolute<br \/>\nprescription.   It  does  not limit the operation of the Act to a remuneration<br \/>\npaid to a partner as such.  It takes within its scope remuneration  or  salary<br \/>\npaid to  a  partner  in  any  capacity.    We  are not here concerned with the<br \/>\ndistinction between his role as a Manager or Karta of the joint family and his<br \/>\nrole as an individual.  The only test that is relevant under  Section  10  (4)\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) of  the Act is whether the payment is made to a partner or not.  We do not<br \/>\nthink that we can accede to the proposition of the  learned  counsel  for  the<br \/>\nassessee  that  when  a  payment  is  not  made to a partner as partner but in<br \/>\nrespect of the services rendered by him to the partnership  it  falls  outside<br \/>\nthe sweep and range of the sub-section&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Section 10 (4) (b) of the 1922 Act reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;any  allowance  in respect of any payment by way of interest, salary,<br \/>\ncommission or remuneration made by a firm to any partner of the firm&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  Section 40 (b) of the 1961 Act as it stood at  the  relevant  time<br \/>\nreads thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;..any  payment  of  salary, bonus, commission or remuneration paid to<br \/>\nany partner who is not a working partner&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of  Rashik  lal  and  Co.    v.<br \/>\nCommissioner  of  Income  Tax (1997) 229 ITR 458, decided by a two Judge Bench<br \/>\nheld, that  a  partner  does  not  act  in  a  representative  capacity  in  a<br \/>\npartnership  firm  and in the assessment of the firm a partner cannot be heard<br \/>\nto say that he has not received the commission as a partner of the firm but in<br \/>\na different capacity.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.  It was further held by the Court that a  contract  of  partnership<br \/>\nhas  no  concern  with  the  obligation of the partner to others in respect of<br \/>\ntheir shares of profit in the partnership and that Section 40 (b)  will  apply<br \/>\neven if the partner joined the firm as a nominee of a Hindu Undivided Family.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Explanation  2  under Sec.40 (b) which was introduced with effect<br \/>\nfrom 1.4.1985 excludes only interest paid by the firm to a partner  who  is  a<br \/>\npartner in a representative capacity and who receives the same on behalf of or<br \/>\nfor the benefit of any other person.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.   Earlier  decision  of this Court in the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/1734785\/\">A.S.K.Rathnaswamy<br \/>\nNadar Firm v.  Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a> (58 ITR 312) which  was  noticed  in<br \/>\nthe later  case  in <a href=\"\/doc\/595676\/\">Commissioner of Income Tax v.  Surendra Manilal Mehta<\/a> (154<br \/>\nITR 264) is in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme  Court  in  the<br \/>\ncase of Rashik lal and Co.  v.  Commissioner of Income Tax (229 ITR 458).  The<br \/>\nlaw  laid down in the case reported in 154 ITR 164 being inconsistent with the<br \/>\ndecision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rashik Lal, must be held to  have<br \/>\nbeen impliedly overruled.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.   On  principle  as well it is not possible to accept the argument<br \/>\nthat the statutory prohibition is to be ignored  or  diluted  by  regarding  a<br \/>\npartner  to  whom remuneration is paid as a person who besides being a partner<br \/>\nis something more or something different when he  deals  with  the  firm.    A<br \/>\npartner  in  a firm is very much a partner and it is that status which defines<br \/>\nhis rights and also imposes on him the obligation to render all  the  services<br \/>\nthat he  is capable of for the advancement of the objects of the firm.  Such a<br \/>\nperson cannot seek to avoid the effect of the prohibition made in the  statute<br \/>\nby describing  himself  as  an  expert.   any expertise that he may possess is<br \/>\nrequired to  be  made  available  to  the  firm  as  a  partner  and  even  if<br \/>\nremuneration  therefor  is  permissible  in  terms  of  the  partnership deed,<br \/>\nnevertheless, having regard to the statutory provision which  prevailed  until<br \/>\nthe law was amended in 1992, payment so made cannot be regarded as being items<br \/>\nof expenditure  so  far as the firm is concerned.  The question is answered in<br \/>\nfavour of the Revenue and against the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.The Assistant Registrar,<br \/>\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,<br \/>\nRajaji Bhavan,<br \/>\nIII Floor, Besant Nagar,<br \/>\nMadras-90.  (with records) (5 copies)<\/p>\n<p>2.The Secretary,<br \/>\nCentral Board of Revenue,<br \/>\nNew Delhi.  (3 copies)<\/p>\n<p>3.The Commissioner of Income Tax,<br \/>\nTamil nadu-III, madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.The Commissioner of Income-tax,<br \/>\n(Appeals)-VI, Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.The Income-tax Officer,<br \/>\nCity Circle-VII (9), Madras.\n<\/p>\n<p>Dev\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) &#8230; on 25 November, 2003 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25\/11\/2003 CORAM THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE R.JAYASIMHA BABU and THE HON&#8217;BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU T.C.No.99 of 2000 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamilnadu-III, Madras. ..Applicant -Vs- M\/s Packwell (Karnataka) Industries, 6,Cathedral Road, 7,madras-86. [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-153908","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) ... on 25 November, 2003 - 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-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) ... on 25 November, 2003 - 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-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-03-19T02:16:35+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\\\/S Packwell (Karnataka) &#8230; on 25 November, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-19T02:16:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1030,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\\\/S Packwell (Karnataka) ... on 25 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-03-19T02:16:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\\\/S Packwell (Karnataka) &#8230; on 25 November, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) ... on 25 November, 2003 - 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-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) ... on 25 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-03-19T02:16:35+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) &#8230; on 25 November, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-19T02:16:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003"},"wordCount":1030,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003","name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) ... on 25 November, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-03-19T02:16:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-packwell-karnataka-on-25-november-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs M\/S Packwell (Karnataka) &#8230; on 25 November, 2003"}]},{"@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\/153908","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=153908"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/153908\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=153908"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=153908"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=153908"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}