{"id":172766,"date":"1961-08-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1961-08-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961"},"modified":"2015-11-14T12:41:07","modified_gmt":"2015-11-14T07:11:07","slug":"the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961","title":{"rendered":"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of … on 18 August, 1961"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of … on 18 August, 1961<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 186, \t\t 1962 SCR (3) 157<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE DOOARS TEA CO., LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL,INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n18\/08\/1961\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSUBBARAO, K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\n\nCITATION:\n 1962 AIR  186\t\t  1962 SCR  (3) 157\n CITATOR INFO :\n E\t    1963 SC 577\t (21)\n D\t    1967 SC 814\t (4)\n F\t    1973 SC2495\t (6)\n D\t    1974 SC1358\t (11)\n\n\nACT:\nAgricultural Income-Agricultural produce used for assessee's\nown  business  and  not\t sold in  the  market-If  by  itself\nconstitutes  income-Market value-Mode of  computation-Bengal\nAgricultural Income-tax Act, 1944 (IV of 1944), s. 2(1)\t (b)\n(1), Rule 4(2).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   appellant\t which\tcarried\t on  business  of   growing,\nmanufacturing and selling tea held a large tract of land  on\nwhich bamboos, thatching grass, and fuel timber were grown\n158\nby it by agricultural. operations through its servants , and\nlaborers and the same were utilised for the purposes of\t its\ntea  business and were not sold in the market or  Otherwise.\nIn the relevant assessment year the Agricultural  Income-tax\nOfficer increased the appellant's return by a certain sum of\nmoney  as representing the market value of its\tagricultural\nincome\tfrom bamboos, thatching grass and fuel\ttimber,\t The\nappellant contended inter alia that the agricultural produce\nin question did not constitute agricultural income under the\nBengal Agricultural Income-tax Act because the same had\t not\nbeen sold or converted into money.\nHeld,\tthat  under  cl.(1)  of\t s.2(1)(b)  of\tthe   Bengal\nAgricultural   Income-tax  Act\tthe   agricultural   produce\nutilised  by  the  assessee for\t its  own,  business  itself\nconstituted income; no sale was contemplated thereunder\t and\nit was not required that the agricultural produce should  be\nsold and profit or gain received from such sale.\nAlexander Tennant v. Robert Suiclair Smith, (1892) A.C. 150,\nIn re MiCklethwait, 11 Ex. 456 and Sir Kikabhai Premchand v.\nCommissioner  of Income-tax (Central) Bombay,<\/a> (1934)  S.C.R.\n219, referred to.\nCommissioner of Income-tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co., 12 L.R. 59\nI.A.  206,  Captain  Maharaj  Kumar  Gopal  Saran  Singh  v.\nCommissioner  of Income-tax, Bihar and Orrissa, (1935)\tL.R.\n62 I.A. 207, not applicable.\nRule  4(2)  framed  under the Act  deals  with\tcases  where\nagricultural  produce  has been sold outside the  market  as\nwell  as  cases where it has not been sold at  all  and\t the\nincome from such agricultural produce may be computed in the\nmanner prescribed thereunder.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No. 381 of 1960.
\nAppeal from the judgment and order dated September 11, 1957,
\nof the Calcutta High Court in Reference No. 102\/1952.
\nS.Mitra,   S.  N.  Mukheijee,  and  B.\tN.   Ghosh,   for
\nAppellant.\n<\/p>\n
R.B. Pal, Asoke Sen and P. K. Bose, for respondent.
\n1961.\tAugust 18.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nGAJENDRAGADKAR,\t J.-This appeal by a certificate arises\t out
\nof a reference made to. the High Court
\n159<\/span>
\nat   Calcutta under s. 63(1) of\t ,the,,\t Bengal Agricultural
\nIncome-Tax Act IV of 1944 (hereafter called the Act).  The,,
\nappellant,  the\t Dooars Tea, Co. Ltd., is a  public  limited
\ncompany\t  and  it  carries   on-  business  of\t growing   ,
\nmanufacturing and selling tea.\t   For\tthe accounting\tyear
\n1948  which  corresponds to the assesments  year  1949-50  a
\nreturn\twas  submitted by the, appellant in respect  of\t its
\nagricultural’\tincome\tshowing\t the  said  income  at\t the
\nRs.3,45,702.  The Agricultural Income-tax Officer,  however,
\ndid  not  accept.the  correctness of  the  said\t return\t and
\nincreased.  the amount to Rs 4,41,940 This increased  amount
\nincluded  a sum of Rs. 39,849 and it represented the  market
\nvalue  of: the appellants agricultural income from  bamboos,
\nthatching  grass  and fuel timber.  It is this\tamount\tthus
\nadded\tby  the\t Agricultural  Income-tax  Officer  to\t the
\nagricultural  income. of the appellant in the relevant\tyear
\nthat has given rise to the present
\nThe facts leading to the reference are not in dispute.\t The
\nappellant holds a large tract of land under lease from\tthe,
\nlocal  Government and it is common-ground that in a part  of
\nthe  said land -it grows bamboos, thatching grass and  -fuel
\ntimber.\t During the relevant year it cut down some  bamboos,\n<\/p>\n
-some thatching grass and. fuel timber and used the same for
\nthe  purpose  of its business.\tThe bamboos,  the  thatching
\ngrass and fuel timber were grown the, appellant on its\tland
\nby  agricultural  operations which were carried\t on  by\t the
\nservants and labourers empoyed by the appellant.  After they
\nwere  grown  they  were utilised by the\t appellant  for\t the
\npurpose of its tea business and were not sold either-in\t the
\nmarket\tor otherwise.  It has been found that the  appellant
\nhas  been  utilising the bamboos thatching  grass  and\tfuel
\ntimber grown by it on its land in this way every year.
\nBefore\tthe  tax Authorities the appellant urged  that\t the
\nagricultural produce in question did’ not
\n160<\/span>
\nconstitute agricultural income within the meaning of the Act
\nbecause\t the same had not been sold.  The  appellant’s\tcase
\nwas  that agricultural produce grown by it on its  own\tland
\ncould  not  in law be treated as its income  unless  it\t was
\nconverted into its money equivalent or into something  which
\nwas money’s worth ; in other words, unless the said  produce
\nwas sold.  The department, on the other hand, has taken\t the
\nview  that  the several varieties  of  agricultural  produce
\ngrown  by the appellant on its land and utilised by  it\t for
\nits business were themselves agricultural income and the tax
\non the said income at be avoided on the plea, that the\tsaid
\nvarieties  had not been sold.  This dispute went up  to\t the
\nTribunal  ; but the Tribunal agreed with the  conclusion  of
\nthe  tax authorities and held that the produce\tin  question
\nconstituted  agricultural  income of the appellant  for\t the
\nrelevant year, and so the addition of Rs. 39,849 made by the
\nAgricultural  Income-tax  Officer in determining  the  total
\nagricultural  income of the appellant for the relevant\tyear
\nwas affirmed.\n<\/p>\n
It  was\t also  urged  by the  appellant\t in  the  assessment
\nproceedings that even if the produce in question constituted
\nthe  appellant’s agricultural income its market value  could
\nnot be computed in money because no rule had been framed for
\nthe  computation  of the market value of such  income.\t The
\nappellant  urged that r. 4 of the Rules framed..  under\t the
\nAct  was inapplicable to the present case.  This  contention
\nhas also been rejected “-by the tax authorities as well\t as
\nby  the\t Tribunal; In the result  the  agricultural  income
\nfound to have been earned by the appellant for the  relevant
\nyear has been duly taxed.\n<\/p>\n
Feeling aggrieved by the final order passed by the  Tribunal
\nin this matter the appellant required the Tribunal to  refer
\ntwo questions for’ the opinion of the High Court, and in due
\ncourse the Tribunal made the reference as required.  The two
\n161<\/span>
\nquestions referred for the, opinion of’ the High Court\thave
\nbeen thus framed by the Tribunal :\n<\/p>\n
\t      (1)   Is bamboo, thatch, fuel, etc., grower by
\n\t      assessee\tcompany\t and utilised  for  its\t own
\n\t      benefits\tin  its tea  business,\tagricultural
\n\t      income  within  the  meaning  of\tthe   Bengal
\n\t      Agricultural Income-tax Act? ; and
\n\t      (2)   If the answer to question (1) be in\t the
\n\t      affirmative, can such income be computed under
\n\t      rule 4 of the rules framed under the Act?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High  Court has answered both these  questions  in\t the
\naffirmative  against  the  appellant.\tThe  appellant\tthen
\napplied\t for and obtained a certificate from the High  Court
\nunder  s.64(2)\tof  the\t Act read  with\t Art.  1355  of\t the
\nConstitution.  The High Court has certified that the case is
\na fit case for appeal to this Court because it was  conceded
\nby both the parties before the High Court that this case had
\nbeen  chosen  by the assessee and the department as  a\ttest
\ncase  since  all  the tea companies are\t interested  in\t the
\nquestions raised in the present reference.  It is with\tthis
\ncertificate  that the appellant has come to this Court\twith
\nits present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
The  answer  to\t the first question would  depend  upon\t the
\nconstruction  of  the  definition  of  agricultural   income
\ncontained in s. 2(1)(b) of the Act.  The charging section is
\ns.3.   It  provides  that  subject  to\tits   two   provisos
\nagricultural income-tax shall be charged for each  financial
\nyear in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the
\nAct  at\t the  rate or rates specified  in  the\tSchedule  in
\nrespect\t of  the total agricultural income of  the  previous
\nyear  of every individual Hindu undivided  family,  company,
\nfirm or other association of individuals and every Ruler  of
\na  Part B State.  Section 7 provides for the computation  of
\ntax and allowances under the head “agricultural income\tfrom
\nagriculture Do the relevant and material words used
\n162<\/span>
\nin  the definition of agricultural income by s 2  reach\t the
\nsubject of taxation in the present case?  That is the  short
\nquestion which falls for our decision.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t  2(1)(a)   deals  with\t the   agricultural   income
\nconsisting  of\trent or revenue derived from land  which  is
\nused  for  agricultural purposes and is either\tassessed  to
\nland revenue in a State or subject to local rate assessed or
\ncollected by officers of the Government as such.  We are not
\nconcerned with this part of the definition.  Section 2(1)(b)
\nreads thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “‘any income derived from such land by-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   agriculture, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  the performance by a cultivator or
\n\t      receiver\t of  rent-in-kind  of  any   process
\n\t      ordinarily   employed  by\t a   cultivator\t  or
\n\t      receiver of rent-in-kind to render the produce
\n\t      raised  or received by him fit to be taken  to
\n\t      market, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       (iii) the sale by a cultivator or receiver of
\n\t      rent-in-kind of the produce raised or received
\n\t      by  him,\tin respect of which no\tprocess\t has
\n\t      been  performed other than a process  of\tthe,
\n\t      nature described in item (ii).”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The respondent, the Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax,
\nWest Bengal, contends that the agricultural produce ‘in\t the
\npresent\t case  falls directly under s.\t2(1)(b)(i).   It  is
\nincome derived from agricultural land by agriculture.  It is
\nnot  disputed by the appellant that in the  context  income
\nmay mean either cash or income in kind.\t It is also conceded
\nby  the\t appellant that the dictionary meaning of  the\tword
\n“income” includes “Produce of a farm”, and so if we were, to
\nconstrue the relevant clause in the light of the  dictionary
\nmeaning ‘of the word come”‘; -it would take in agricultural
\nproduce with which we are concerned
\n163<\/span>
\nin  the present case.  It is, however, urged that the”\tword
\n“Income”  necessarily denotes, and Las reference to,  profit
\nor  gain,  and\tprofit or gain cannot  be  made\t unless\t the
\nproduce is sold and realises its value.\t No person can trade
\nwith  himself and so if the agricultural produce is used  by
\nthe  appellant for its own purposes there is no\t element  of
\nsale involved in the transaction and there can be no  profit
\nor  gain  which would justify the imposition of tax  on\t the
\nsaid produce.\n<\/p>\n
In support of this argument it has been urged before us that
\nthe definition of agricultural income prescribed by s. 2  of
\nthe Act is common to all the State enactments in respect  of
\nagricultural  income  and is the same as the  definition  of
\nagricultural income prescribed by s. 2(1) of the  Income-tax
\nAct.\tThe  same  definition  has  been  adopted   by\t the
\nConstitution  under  Art.  366(1).  That  being\t so,  it  is
\ncontended  that in interpret’ the word “income” it would  be
\nrelevant to rely on the decisions under the Income-tax\tAct.
\nIn  Alexander  Tennant\tv. Robert Sinclair  Smith  (1)\tLord
\nHalsbury   has\tcited  with  approval\tLord   Wensleydale’s
\nobservation  in In re Micklethwait (2) that “‘it is a  well-
\nestablisbed  rule,  that  the subject is  not  to  be  taxed
\nwithout\t clear words for that purpose ; and also that  every
\nAct  of\t Parliament must be read according  to\tthe  natural
\nconstruction  of its words”.  In that case it was held\tthat
\nthe  benefit  which  the appellant  assessee  derived’\tfrom
\nhaving rent-free house provided for him, by the Bank brought
\nin nothing which can’ be reckoned up as receipt or  properly
\nbe  described  as  income. Mr.\t Mitra\tfor  the  appellant,
\ncontends  that income obviously and necessarily denotes\t the
\ncoming\tin  of profit or gain, and what is  true  about\t the
\nhouse  which the assessee Alexander Tennant was\t allowed  to
\nuse  is equally true about the agricultural land  owned\t by, the appellant
\n.  The appellant has received
\n(1)  [1892] A.C. 150,154.  (2) 11 Ex. 456.\n<\/p>\n
164<\/span><\/p>\n
no profit or gain from the agricultural produce derived from
\nits  land,  and\t so  the said  produce\tcannot\tbe  said  to
\nconstitute its income under s.\t   2(1)(b)(i).
\nThe same argument is put in another form on the authority of
\nthe  decision  of this Court in Sir  Kikabhai  Premchand  v.
\nCommissioner  of Income-tax (Central), Bombay In<\/a>  that\tcase
\nBose  J.,  who spoke for the majority of the  Court,  stated
\nthat  it  was well recognised that in revenue  cases  regard
\nmust be had to the substance of the transaction rather\tthan
\nits mere form, and he proceeded to observe that in the\tcase
\nbefore\tthe  Court,  disregarding  technicalities,  it\t was
\nimpossible  to get away from the fact that the business\t was
\nowned and run by the assessee himself ; and if he was to  be
\nheld  liable for the tax “you reach the position that a\t man
\nis  supposed to be selling to himself and thereby  making  a
\nprofit\tout of himself which on the face of it is  not\tonly
\nabsurd\tbut against all canons of mercantile and  income-tax
\nlaw”.\tMr. Mitra suggests that in taxing  the\tagricultural
\nproduce\t utilised by the appellant for its own\tpurpose\t the
\nrespondent is really taxing the appellant on the basis\tthat
\nit   has  traded  with\titself\tand  made  profits  on\t the
\nagricultural produce in question.\n<\/p>\n
This  argument\tis based on the assumption  that  income  as
\ndefined\t by  s. 2(1)(b)(i) must always be in the  nature  of
\nprofit\tor  gain,  and that  inevitably\t postulates  a\tsale
\ntransaction  made at a profit or gain.\tMr. Mitra  seeks  to
\nderive\tassistance for this argument from the provisions  of
\nss. 4 and 6 of the Income-tax Act where ‘income profits\t and
\ngains  are  grouped  together.\t What  is  true\t about\t the
\ndenotation  of the word “income” under the  Income-tax\tAct,
\nsays Mr. Mitra, must be equally true about the denotation of
\nthe word ,,income” under 2(1)(b)(i) of the Act,
\n(1)  [1954] S.C.R. 219.\n<\/p>\n
165<\/span><\/p>\n
In  dealing  with this argument it is necessary to  bear in
\nmind  that  the\t word “‘income” even as it is  used  in\t the
\nIncome-tax  Act\t has often been\t characterised\tby  judicial
\ndecisions as formidably wide and vague in its scope.  It  is
\na  word of elastic import and its extent and sweep  are\t not
\ncontrolled  or limited by the use of the words “profits\t and
\ngains”\tin ss. 4 and 6. As has been observed by\t Sir  George
\nLowndes in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Shaw Wallace & Co.,
\n(1) the object of Indian Income-tax is to tax income a\tterm
\nwhich  it does not define.  It is expanded, no\tdoubt,\tinto
\nincome,\t profits  and  gains, but the expansion\t is  more  a
\nmatter\t of  words  than  of  substance.   Similar  is\t the
\nobservation  of Lord Russell in Captain Maharaj Kumar  Gopal
\nSaran Narain Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bihar\t and
\nOrissa (2)where it has been observed that “the word “income”
\nis  not\t limited  by  the  words ,profits”  and gains”.
\nAnything  which\t can  be properly  described  as  income  is
\ntaxable\t under\tthe  Act unless\t expressly  exempted”.\t The
\ndiverse forms which income may assume cannot exhaustively be
\nenumerated, and so in each case the decision of the question
\nas  to whether any particular receipt is income or not\tmust
\ndepend\tupon the nature of the receipt and the\ttrue,  scope
\nand  effect of the relevant taxing provision.\tThe  receipt
\nmay  be an income for the purpose of taxation though it\t may
\nnot  amount  to\t profit.  The case  of\tGopal  Saran  Narain
\nSingh(2)  itself is an illustration in point.  In that\tcase
\nthe  assessee  aged 47 had transferred an estate  worth\t two
\ncrores\tof  rupees  for a relatively small  annuity  of\t Rs.
\n2,40,000  for life.  The, said annuity could not  constitute
\nor provide a profit or gain to the assessee but all the same
\nit  was taxable as income.  Thus the argument based  on\t the
\nemphasis  on  the use of the words “‘profits and  gains”  in
\nss.4  and 6 of the Income-tax Act cannot really\t assist\t the
\nappellant
\n(1)  (1932) L. R. 59 I.A. 206, 212.\n<\/p>\n
(1935) L.R. 6 2 I.A. 207,
\n166<\/span>
\nin  construing s. 2(1)(b)(i) of, the Act with. which we\t are
\nconcerned.   What  the\tword  “income”\tdenotes\t has  to  be
\ndetermined in the. context of the said section itself.
\nGoing  back  to s.2(1)(b) it refers to income  derived\tfrom
\nland  which means arising from land and denotes\t income\t the
\nimmediate  and effective source of which is  land.   Section
\n2(i)(b)\t consists of three clauses.  Let us  first  construe
\ncls.  (ii) and (iii).  Clause (ii) includes cases of  income
\nderived\t  from\tthe  performance  of  any  process   therein
\nspecified.   The  process  must\t be  one  which\t is  usually
\nemployed  by the cultivator or receiver of rent-in-kind;  it
\nmay  be simple manual process or it may involve the use\t and
\nassistance  of machinery.  That is the first requirement  of
\nthis  proviso.\t The, second requirement is  that  the\tsaid
\nprocess\t must have been employed with the object  of  making
\nthe  produce  marketable.  It is, however,  clear  that\t the
\nemployment of the process contemplated by the second  clause
\nmust  not alter the character of the produce.\tThe  produce
\nmust retain its original character and the only change\tthat
\nmay  have  been brought about in the produce is to  make  it
\nmarketable.  The said change in the condition of the produce
\nis only intended to make the produce a saleable commodity in
\nthe market.  Thus cl. (ii) includes within the categories of
\nincome\tderived from the employment of the  process  falling
\nunder  that clause.  As we have just observed the object  of
\n’employing  the\t requisite process is to  make\tthe  produce
\nmarket. able but in terms the clause does not refer to’ sale
\nand does not require that the income should be obtained from
\nsale as. such though  in  a sense it contemplates the sale
\nof the produce.\n<\/p>\n
That  takes  us\t to el. (iii).\tThis  clause  in  terms\t and
\nexpressly  refers  to  the income derived  from,  sale.\t  It
\nrefers\tto the sale price realised either by the  cultivator or the receiv
\ner of rent-in-kind by the sale of the  produce
\nin respect
\n     167<\/span>
\nof which the process as contemplated by cl.  (ii)  has\tbeen
\nperformed.It is significant   that  the sale  to  which
\nel. (iii)refers\t must be the sale of produce which has\tnot
\nbeen subject to any ,process other than that contemplated by
\ncl.  (ii). Thus it may be stated that reading cls. (ii)\t and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\ttogether   they\t  contemplate  the   sale   of\t the
\nproduce–cl.(ii)  indirectly  inasmuch as it refers  to\t the
\nprocess\t employed for making the produce marketable and\t cl.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)  directly inasmuch as it refers to the price  realised
\nby  sale of produce which has been subjected to the  process
\ncontemplated  by  cl.  (ii).  Therefore, it  is\t clear\tthat
\nincome\tderived from sale of agricultural produce  has\tbeen
\nprovided  for by (ii) and (iii) and prima facie\t that  would
\nShow  that  cl. (i) which does not refer to  sale  even\t in-
\ndirectly cannot be intended to cover cases of income derived
\nfrom the sale of agricultural produce.\n<\/p>\n
Considered in the light of cls. (ii) and (iii) of  s.2(1)(b)
\nwhat is the true scope and effect of the income contemplated
\nby  cl.\t (i) ? In terms the clause takes in  income  derived
\nfrom  agricultural  land  by agriculture ; and\tas  we\thave
\nalready\t pointed  out giving the material words\t their\tplan
\ngrammatical  meaning  there is no  doubt  that\tagricultural
\nproduce\t constitutes  income under this\t clause.   Is  there
\nanything  in the context which requires the introduction  of
\nthe concept of sale in interpreting this clause as suggested
\nby  the\t appellant ? In our opinion this  question  must  be
\nanswered  in the negative.  Not only is there no  indication
\nin  the\t context which would justify the  importing  of\t the
\nconcept of sale in the relevant clause, but as we have\tjust
\nindicated the indication provided by ClS. (ii) and (iii)  is
\nall  to\t the contrary-.\t What this clause seems\t clearly  to
\nhave  in view is agricultural produce itself which has\tbeen
\nused  by  the assessee.\t In the present case it\t is  common-
\nground that the appellant has utilised for its business the
\nagricultural  produce in question and we feel no  difficulty
\nin agreeing with the High Court when it held that
\n168<\/span>
\nthe  agricultural produce utilised by the appellant for\t its
\nbusiness  constitutes  income.under s. 2(1)(b)(i).   If\t the
\nagricultural produce used by the appellant was not  intended
\nto  be\tincluded within the definition of  income  under  s.
\n2(i)(b)\t we apprehend that the whole clause would have\tbeen
\nvery differently worded.  Where income derived from sale was
\nintended  to  be prescribed the Legislature has done  so  in
\nterms  by  cl. (iii) of s. 2(1)(b).  Where  the,  marketable
\ncondition  of the produce resulting from the  employment  of
\nthe specified processes and income derived from the adoption
\nof such processes was intended to be included in the  income
\nthe  Legislature has done so by cl. (ii) ; and so those\t two
\ncases\thaving\tbeen  specifically  provided  for  the\t two
\nrespective  clauses  there  would be  no  justification\t for
\nintroducing the concept of sale in construing cl. (i) of  s.
\n2(1)(b).   The words in s. 2(1)(b)(i) are, in  our  opinion,
\nwide, plain and unambiguous and they cannot be construed  to
\nexclude\t agricultural produce used by the appellant for\t its
\nbusiness.   In this connection we may incidentally refer  to
\nthe provisions of sub-cls..(i), (ii) and (iii) of s.7(1)  of
\nthe  Act  which\t provide  for the  computation\tof  tax\t and
\nallowances   under  the\t head  “agricultural   income\tfrom
\nagriculture”.\tThese three sub-clauses in terms  correspond
\nto the three sub-clauses of s. 2(1)(b) and lend some support
\nto the conclusion that cl. (i) in s.2(1)(b) does not require
\nthat  the agricultural produce should be sold and profit  or
\ngain  received from such sale before it is included  in\t the
\nsaid  clause.  Therefore, we do not think that Mr. Mitra  is
\njustified  in  contending that the answer made by  the\tHigh
\nCourt in reference to question 1 is wrong.-
\nThe   second   question\t relates  to  the   computation\t  of
\nagricultural  income  for the purposes of the Act.   Rule  4
\nwith  the  construction\t of which  the\tsecond\tquestion  is
\nconcerned, reads thus
\n169<\/span>
\n\t      “4  For  the purposes of the Act\tthe,  market
\n\t      value  of\t any  agricultural  produce   shall,
\n\t      except in the case referred to in clause (a.)
\n\t      of  the proviso to sub-section (1) of  section
\n\t      8,  be  determined in  the  following  manner,
\n\t      namely
\n(1)if the agricultural produce was sold in the market, the
\nmarket\tvalue  shall. be deemed’ to be the price  for  which
\nsuch produce was sold;\n<\/p>\n
(2)if  the  agricultural produce has not been  sold  in\t the
\nmarket, the market value- shall be deemed to be-\n<\/p>\n
\t      (a)where\tsuch produce is ordinarily sold
\n\t      in  the market in its raw state, or after\t the performance
\nof  any process\t ordinarily  em-\n<\/p>\n
\t      ployed by a cultivator or receiver of rent-in-
\n\t      kind  to render it fit to be taken  to  market
\n\t      the   value  calculated\taccording..   to-the
\n\t      average  price at which such produce has\tbeen
\n\t      so  sold in the locality during  the  previous
\n\t      year  in\trespect of which the  assessment  is
\n\t      made,;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)where\tsuch produce is not ordinarily\tsold
\n\t      in  the  market in the manner referred  to  in
\n\t      sub-clause (a), the aggregate of-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   the expenses of cultivation\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)  the\t land revenue or rent, paid for\t the
\n\t      area in which it was grown ; and\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)such\t amount as the Agricultural  Income-
\n\t      tax  Officer finds, having regard to  all\t the
\n\t      circumstances  in\t each case, to\trepresent  a
\n\t      reasonable  rate\tof profit on  the  sale,  of
\n\t      produce in question as agricultural produce.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It  is\tclear that r. 4(1) cannot apply to  the\t appellant’s
\ncase  for the agricultural produce in question has not\tbeen
\nsold  in the market but has been used by the  appellant\t for
\nits own business The appellant contends that r. 4(2)  cannot
\nalso be in voked against it, and so there is ‘no rule under
\n170<\/span>
\nwhich  the agricultural income in question can be  computed.
\nIncidentally   the   appellant\t suggested   that   if\t its
\nconstruction of r. 4(2) is right it in directly supports its
\ncase as to the true scope and effect of s. 2(1)(b)(1).\t The
\nLegislature  knew that agricultural produce is\tnot  taxable
\nunless it is sold, and so it has not- made any rule for\t the
\ncomputation  of\t agricultural income alleged  to  have\tbeen
\nreceived  by the assessee from agricultural produce used  by
\nthe  assessee for its own purpose.  On the other  hand,\t the
\nrespondent  contends that r. 4(2) covers the  present  case,
\nand if that is so., according to the respondent, that  would
\nincidentally support his construction of s. 2(1)(b)(1).
\nThe  argument  urged by the appellant assumes that  the\t two
\nrules are based on a kind of basic dichotomy.  Rule I  deals
\nwith agricultural produce sold in the market, and r. 2\twith
\nthe agricultural produce which has been sold but not in\t the
\nmarket.\t  In other words, according to the  appellant,\tboth
\nthe  rules assume that the agricultural produce has in\tfact
\nbeen sold, r. (1) deals with cases where it has been sold in
\nthe market and r. (2) with cases where it has been sold\t but
\nnot in the market.  If this argument is right then of course
\ncases  where  agricultural produce has not been\t sold  would
\nremain\toutside the purview of both the rules ; but is\tthis
\nargument right ? We have no hesitation in holding that it is
\nnot.   In  our\topinion,  r.  (2)  deals  with\tcases  where
\nagricultural  produce  has been sold outside the  market  as
\nwell  as cases where agricultural produce has not been\tsold
\nat all.\t The effect of reading the two sub-rules together is
\nthat the cases of market sales are covered by r. (1) and all
\nother cases are covered by r. (2).  Rule (2) is a  residuary
\nrule  which applies to all cases not falling under  r.\t(1).
\nTherefore,  we must hold that the answer given by  the\tHigh
\nCourt  to question 2 is also right.  It is obvious that\t the
\nrules framed in exercise of the power conferred by s. 57  of
\nthe
\n171<\/span>
\nAct  cannot  legitimately be pressed into  service  for\t the
\npurpose\t of construing the relevant provisions of the Act  ;
\neven so, incidentally it may be permissible to observe\tthat
\nthe construction of r. 4(2) which we are, inclined to  adopt
\nis consistent with the respondent’s case that s.2  (1)(b)(i)
\nincludes  agricultural produce utilised b the appellant\t for
\nits own business.\n<\/p>\n
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed. With costs.
\nAppeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of … on 18 August, 1961 Equivalent citations: 1962 AIR 186, 1962 SCR (3) 157 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: THE DOOARS TEA CO., LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL,INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18\/08\/1961 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. […]<\/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-172766","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of ... on 18 August, 1961 - 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-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of ... on 18 August, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961\" \/>\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=\"1961-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-14T07:11:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 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-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of … on 18 August, 1961\",\"datePublished\":\"1961-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T07:11:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961\"},\"wordCount\":4052,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961\",\"name\":\"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of ... on 18 August, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1961-08-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T07:11:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of … on 18 August, 1961\"}]},{\"@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 Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of ... on 18 August, 1961 - 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-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of ... on 18 August, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1961-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-14T07:11:07+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of … on 18 August, 1961","datePublished":"1961-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T07:11:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961"},"wordCount":4052,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961","name":"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of ... on 18 August, 1961 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1961-08-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T07:11:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-dooars-tea-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-on-18-august-1961#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Dooars Tea Co., Ltd vs Commissioner Of … on 18 August, 1961"}]},{"@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\/172766","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=172766"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172766\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172766"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172766"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172766"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}