{"id":175089,"date":"2009-10-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-05-04T09:01:50","modified_gmt":"2015-05-04T03:31:50","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nITA.No. 1722 of 2009()\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALICUT.\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S. URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX\n\n                For Respondent  : No Appearance\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :29\/10\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n                                                                                   C.R.\n                    C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &\n                               V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.\n               ....................................................................\n                 I.T. Appeal Nos.1722 & 1738 of 2009\n               ....................................................................\n               Dated this the 29th day of October, 2009.\n\n                                      JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
      The connected appeals are filed by the Revenue against the<\/p>\n
orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upholding respondent’s<\/p>\n
claim for deduction\/exemption under Section 80P(2)(vi) of the Income<\/p>\n
Tax Act. We have heard Senior Standing Counsel Sri.P.K.R.Menon<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
      2. Respondent is a Co-operative Society, all of it’s members being<\/p>\n
workers. The Society is engaged in civil construction work and is also<\/p>\n
said to be engaged in purchase and sale of construction materials like<\/p>\n
sand. In the return filed for 2003-2004, respondent did not make any<\/p>\n
claim of deduction or exemption under Section 80P(2)(vi). However,<\/p>\n
when the return was taken for scrutiny assessment and notice received<\/p>\n
under Section 143(2), the assessee’s representative raised a claim of<\/p>\n
exemption\/deduction available to the assessee under Section 80P(2)(vi)<\/p>\n
                                      2<\/span><\/p>\n
of the Act as the purpose of constitution and functioning of the Society<\/p>\n
is “collective disposal of labour of it’s members” qualifying for<\/p>\n
deduction under the above provision. The Assessing Officer allowed<\/p>\n
the assessee to raise the claim of deduction\/exemption, but rejected the<\/p>\n
claim on the ground that assessee is engaged in civil construction work<\/p>\n
and also in purchase and sale of sand and other construction materials.<\/p>\n
However, when assessment was challenged in first appeal on merit, the<\/p>\n
first appellate authority namely, the C.I.T.(Appeal), held that assessee<\/p>\n
was not entitled to raise the claim of deduction without filing a revised<\/p>\n
return which in fact it did not file. However, for the assessment year<\/p>\n
2004-2005, the claim for deduction was made in the return itself and<\/p>\n
though the assessing authority declined the relief claimed, based on it’s<\/p>\n
order for the year 2003-2004, the C.I.T.(Appeal) in first appeal granted<\/p>\n
relief for the year 2004-2005 holding that respondent is engaged in<\/p>\n
collective disposal of labour entitling it for deduction under the<\/p>\n
abovereferred provision. The assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal<\/p>\n
for the year 2003-2004 and Department filed appeal before the<\/p>\n
Tribunal for 2004-2005. The Tribunal after hearing both sides allowed<\/p>\n
the claim of deduction on merits for both years and the technical<\/p>\n
                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
objection raised by the department that claim for the year 2003-2004 is<\/p>\n
not maintainable for the reason of non-filing of revised return, was<\/p>\n
also turned down holding that appellate authorities have the authority<\/p>\n
to entertain the claim of deduction made by the assessee.<\/p>\n
      3. Senior counsel appearing for the appellant contended that<\/p>\n
assessee has not claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(vi) in the<\/p>\n
original return filed for the year 2003-2004 and no revised return was<\/p>\n
also filed when assessment was taken up for scrutiny.     However, we<\/p>\n
find no substance in this contention because the claim was raised<\/p>\n
through a letter filed by the representative appearing for the assessee<\/p>\n
before the Assessing officer and the Assessing Officer in fact accepted<\/p>\n
the same, considered the case on merits and completed the assessment.<\/p>\n
Even though Senior Counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision<\/p>\n
of   the   Supreme      Court   in   GOETZE      (INDIA)    LTD.     V.\n<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX reported in (2006) 284 ITR 323<\/p>\n
and contended that without filing a revised return assessee is not<\/p>\n
entitled to put forward a claim of deduction, we do not think the<\/p>\n
decision has any application because making a claim through a letter in<\/p>\n
the assessment proceeding virtually amounts to revision of the return<\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
already filed and on facts in this case, we find that the Assessing<\/p>\n
Officer without raising any objection admitted the claim and<\/p>\n
considered the same on merits. Once the claim is entertained and<\/p>\n
decided by the Assessing Officer on merits, we do not think the<\/p>\n
department is entitled to canvass the position that the claim cannot be<\/p>\n
entertained for want of a revised return.         This is because if the<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer had raised objection against raising the claim<\/p>\n
through a letter, assessee would have been able to file a revised return a<\/p>\n
that stage and maintain the claim within the norms covered by the<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court. We, therefore, uphold the finding of<\/p>\n
the Tribunal that the technical objection raised by the department is not<\/p>\n
tenable.\n<\/p>\n
      4. So far as the merits of the case is considered, even though no<\/p>\n
specific question is raised in the appeals filed, Senior Standing Counsel<\/p>\n
for the appellant submitted that this is an omission and department<\/p>\n
wants to amend the appeal to cover such a question also. We do not<\/p>\n
think any written amendment is required for this court to permit the<\/p>\n
counsel to raise a question of law, if it is substantial question of law<\/p>\n
warranting decision by this court under Section 260A of the Income<\/p>\n
                                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
Tax Act. We, therefore, permitted the counsel to raise this question<\/p>\n
orally and argue on merits.        However, after going through the<\/p>\n
Tribunal’s order and after considering the constitution and nature of<\/p>\n
activities of the respondent-Society, we feel the Society is entitled to<\/p>\n
deduction under Section 80P(2)(vi) on the entire income because in the<\/p>\n
first place, all the members of the Society are workers and they engage<\/p>\n
themselves in the execution of civil works undertaken by them. There<\/p>\n
is no case for the department that Society consists of any member other<\/p>\n
than construction worker and there is also no case that all the member-<\/p>\n
workers are not engaged in the activities of the Society which is<\/p>\n
execution of civil construction work. A workers’ Society undertaking<\/p>\n
civil construction work and executing the work by themselves rightly<\/p>\n
answers the activity referred to in Section 80P(2)(vi) i.e. collective<\/p>\n
disposal of labour of the members of the Society. If members of the<\/p>\n
Society are engaged in construction activities, then the Society itself<\/p>\n
should be held to be engaged in collective disposal of labour of it’s<\/p>\n
members.      Therefore, the income earned from construction work<\/p>\n
qualifies for deduction under Section 80P(2)(vi) of the Act.        The<\/p>\n
remaining issue is only with regard to the trading done in construction<\/p>\n
                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
materials like sand which are stated to have been purchased and sold by<\/p>\n
the Society. Here again, the transactions are incidental in nature and<\/p>\n
the members themselves are engaged in handling of the goods in the<\/p>\n
course of purchase and sale of the same.         Construction material<\/p>\n
involved is also sand where the labour involved is substantial and the<\/p>\n
income earned is also not found to be attributable to profit in trading<\/p>\n
and not attributable to labour inputs.    We, therefore, hold that the<\/p>\n
Tribunal rightly granted deduction on the entire income of the Society<\/p>\n
under Section 80P(2)(vi) of the Act. Consequently the appeals are<\/p>\n
dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                   C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
\n                                   Judge<\/p>\n
                                   V.K.MOHANAN
\n                                   Judge
\npms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ITA.No. 1722 of 2009() 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CALICUT. … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S. URALUNGAL LABOUR CONTRACT … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX For Respondent […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175089","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 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-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-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 M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 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-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-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=\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-05-04T03:31:50+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-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-04T03:31:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1133,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-05-04T03:31:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-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 M\\\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 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 M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 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-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-05-04T03:31:50+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-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-04T03:31:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009"},"wordCount":1133,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-05-04T03:31:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-uralungal-labour-contract-on-29-october-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 M\/S. Uralungal Labour Contract on 29 October, 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\/175089","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=175089"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175089\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175089"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175089"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175089"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}