{"id":175584,"date":"2010-02-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010"},"modified":"2018-10-05T07:54:52","modified_gmt":"2018-10-05T02:24:52","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed<\/div>\n<pre>        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                 Judgment delivered on: 24th February, 2010\n\n+       ITA 1\/2007\n\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                        ..... Appellant\n\n\n                                    -versus-\n\n\nFORECH INDIA LTD                                                ..... Respondent<\/pre>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case:\n<\/p>\n<pre>For the Appellant    :     Ms Prem Lata Bansal\nFor the Respondent   :     Mr M.S. Syali, Sr Advocate with Ms Mahua Kalra\n\n\n\nCORAM:\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL\n\n<\/pre>\n<p>        1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to<br \/>\n           see the judgment?\n<\/p>\n<p>        2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?\n<\/p>\n<p>        3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?<\/p>\n<p>BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)<\/p>\n<p>1.      The present appeal filed by the Revenue is in respect of the<\/p>\n<p>assessment year 2000-01 and arises out of the Income Tax Appellate<\/p>\n<p>Tribunal&#8217;s order dated 28th April, 2006 in ITA No. 4562\/Del\/2003.<\/p>\n<p>2.      The Revenue was also in appeal before the Tribunal being aggrieved<\/p>\n<p>by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), who had<\/p>\n<p>deleted the addition of Rs 1,15,44,926\/-, which the Assessing Officer had<\/p>\n<p>ITA 1\/2007                                                                  page 1 of 6<br \/>\n made on account of undisclosed stock found with the assessee during the<\/p>\n<p>course of a survey.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>3.      We have heard counsel for the parties and have also examined the<\/p>\n<p>orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax<\/p>\n<p>(Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.<\/p>\n<p>4.      We note that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) observed<\/p>\n<p>that the crux of the matter pertains to the genuineness of purchase of<\/p>\n<p>Rs 1,46,00,078\/- made by the respondent-assessee prior to the date of survey<\/p>\n<p>but which were not entered in the purchase account in the financial books.<\/p>\n<p>The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) also noted that out of this,<\/p>\n<p>purchases to the extent of Rs 1,24,00,747\/- were represented by six bills<\/p>\n<p>from M\/s Sanjay International and M\/s Maxwell. The case of the assessee<\/p>\n<p>was that even though the entries of such material had been made in the stock<\/p>\n<p>register and such stock was physically found in the factory premises of the<\/p>\n<p>assessee and formed part of the inventory taken in the survey, the purchase<\/p>\n<p>value of these items had not been debited in the purchase account as the<\/p>\n<p>purchase bills had not been handed over to the accountant for making entries<\/p>\n<p>thereof in the books of accounts. It was observed by the Commissioner of<\/p>\n<p>Income Tax (Appeals) that, as against this, the Assessing Officer felt that the<\/p>\n<p>aforesaid purchase bills had been arranged after the survey and were,<\/p>\n<p>therefore, not genuine.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>5.       The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) examined the<\/p>\n<p>ITA 1\/2007                                                             page 2 of 6<br \/>\n genuineness of the purchase bills and examined the issue as to whether the<\/p>\n<p>purchase bills had been arranged after the survey or that the materials had, in<\/p>\n<p>fact, been purchased by the assessee prior to the survey. The Commissioner<\/p>\n<p>of Income Tax (Appeals), on examining the facts in detail, found as under:-<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>                    &#8220;I find from the facts placed before me that these were<br \/>\n             import purchases, on which Customs Duty has been paid<br \/>\n             before the date of survey or the same have been imported<br \/>\n             against the Duty Exemption Scheme of the Govt. of India.<br \/>\n             The payment of Duty is verifiable from its bank account for<br \/>\n             the period prior to the date of survey. Also the entries of such<br \/>\n             imports are found to be duly made in the Duty Exemption<br \/>\n             Export Certificate book, which is authenticated by the<br \/>\n             Customs and Excise authorities prior to the date of survey.<br \/>\n             The appellant has also submitted the copies of Bills of Entry<br \/>\n             issued by customs authorities in respect of these goods, which<br \/>\n             show that the dates of import of these goods are prior to the<br \/>\n             date of survey and that these goods had been actually learned<br \/>\n             by customs prior to the date of survey. Further, the export<br \/>\n             obligation discharged certificate was also issued by the Joint<br \/>\n             Director General, Foreign Trade, which shows that the goods<br \/>\n             had been purchased by the appellant before the date of survey<br \/>\n             and had also been utilized for manufacturing purposes to<br \/>\n             discharge the export obligations. It is also noticed that gate<br \/>\n             passes were issued in the name of the company by Container<br \/>\n             Corporation of India while releasing the goods from the ICD,<br \/>\n             Tuglakabad after levy of certain charges for storage of<br \/>\n             container in which imports were made. The appellant has<br \/>\n             shown that the dates on these gate passes are all prior to the<br \/>\n             date of survey. The facts also show that one of these import<br \/>\n             purchase bills is from M\/s Bayer, GMBH, in respect of which<br \/>\n             customs clearance has been made and the documentary<br \/>\n             evidences produced before and the Assessing Officer show<br \/>\n             that this purchase was made prior to the date of survey. The<br \/>\n             claim of the appellant is found verifiable from the RG-23,<br \/>\n             Part-II entries in excise registers, on which the MODVAT<br \/>\n             credit has also been allowed by the Excise authorities prior to<br \/>\n             the date of survey.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>                     I find that the fact that purchases had actually been<br \/>\n             made and the goods had actually been received by the<br \/>\n             appellant prior to the date of survey has also been verified<br \/>\n             independently by the Assessing Officer during the course of<br \/>\n             assessment proceedings from the suppliers, as well as from<br \/>\n             the clearing agents who have confirmed that they had cleared<br \/>\n             the goods and transported and delivered the same to the<br \/>\n             factory of the appellant. The entries of purchase of these<br \/>\n             goods prior to the date of survey are also found recorded in<\/p>\n<p>ITA 1\/2007                                                                 page 3 of 6<br \/>\n              the stock register of the appellant, which fact has been duly<br \/>\n             verified by the Assessing Officer himself at the time of<br \/>\n             assessment proceedings and it is not the case of the Assessing<br \/>\n             Officer that there is any discrepancy in the maintenance of the<br \/>\n             same. The fact that the books of account have been<br \/>\n             maintained on the computer is not disputed by the Assessing<br \/>\n             Officer. The facts show that it was only the Trial Balance<br \/>\n             which was identified by the survey Team.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>6.      The Tribunal was of the view that the order passed by the<\/p>\n<p>Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) could not be faulted and that the<\/p>\n<p>Assessing Officer&#8217;s approach was not correct. The Tribunal, inter alia, held<\/p>\n<p>as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>             &#8220;17. The controversy as noted by the ld. CIT(A) is whether<br \/>\n             claim of the assessee that purchases to the tune of<br \/>\n             Rs.1,46,00,078\/- made prior to the date of survey and claimed<br \/>\n             to be not entered in the financial books was genuine or not.<br \/>\n             Out of above, purchases to the extent of Rs.1,24,00,747\/-<br \/>\n             were made from two parties, namely, M\/s Sanjay<br \/>\n             International and M\/s Maxwell through 6 bills noted by the<br \/>\n             ld. Assessing Officer at page 3 of the impugned order. The ld.<br \/>\n             Assessing Officer refused to believe the claim of the assessee.<br \/>\n             We have already recorded reasons given by the Assessing<br \/>\n             Officer in the assessment order for not accepting above claim.<br \/>\n             The objections raised were met by the assessee before the ld.<br \/>\n             CIT (Appeals) and his attention was drawn to various items<br \/>\n             which showed that purchases made by the assessee were<br \/>\n             genuine though not accounted for in the financial books. The<br \/>\n             ld. CIT(A) for the reasons recorded by him and reproduced<br \/>\n             above has held that on preponderance of probability the case<br \/>\n             of the assessee has to be accepted as genuine. The addition<br \/>\n             has been accordingly deleted.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>             18.    Comparative study of two orders, and on facts, we are<br \/>\n             inclined to accept and agree with the order passed by the ld.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>             CIT(A). Although complete detail of what happened at the<br \/>\n             time of survey was not produced before us, it is agreed<br \/>\n             between the parties that survey party on 20.1.2000 found<br \/>\n             discrepancy between stock actually present in the factory<br \/>\n             premises and stock worked out as per books of account of the<br \/>\n             assessee. The discrepancy pointed out in stock was fully<br \/>\n             reconciled on behalf of the assessee although the plea was<br \/>\n             taken that some of the purchases including purchases made at<br \/>\n             high sea were not entered in financial books though goods<br \/>\n             were actually received at the factory premises. It is not in<\/p>\n<p>ITA 1\/2007                                                                page 4 of 6<br \/>\n               dispute that books of accounts of the assessee at the time of<br \/>\n              survey were incomplete. The assessee later completed books<br \/>\n              of accounts after incorporating all the purchases and showed<br \/>\n              that position of stock at the premises and in the books of<br \/>\n              accounts stood reconciled. This was conveyed by the assessee<br \/>\n              to the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax being certified it for<br \/>\n              vide letter dated 7.2.2000. The same position was maintained<br \/>\n              by the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.<br \/>\n              The assessee had also relied upon the fact that completed<br \/>\n              books of accounts were audited and supported by report of an<br \/>\n              Auditor.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<p>7.      In our view, the findings returned by the Commissioner of Income<\/p>\n<p>Tax (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal with regard to the<\/p>\n<p>genuineness of the purchases prior to the survey are pure findings of fact.<\/p>\n<p>We would also like to note the decision of this Court in the case of<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"\/doc\/924591\/\">Commissioner of Income Tax v. NHK Japan Broadcasting Corporation<\/a>:<\/p>\n<p>291 ITR 331 (Delhi), wherein the scope of interference with findings of fact<\/p>\n<p>in an appeal under Section 260A has been pithily explained. In the said<\/p>\n<p>decision it was observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>              &#8220;12. The effect of a concurrent finding has been dealt with<br \/>\n              in Ishwar Dass Jain v. Sohan Lal, AIR 2000 SC 426. The<br \/>\n              Supreme Court noted two situations where findings of fact<br \/>\n              can be interfered with (though under section 100 of the Code<br \/>\n              of Civil Procedure which is admittedly in pari materia with<br \/>\n              section 260A of the Act). The first situation is when material<br \/>\n              or relevant evidence is not considered which, if considered,<br \/>\n              would have led to an opposite conclusion, while the second<br \/>\n              situation in which interference is permissible is where a<br \/>\n              finding has been arrived at by placing reliance on<br \/>\n              inadmissible evidence which if it was omitted, an opposite<br \/>\n              conclusion was possible. Neither of these two situations arises<br \/>\n              in the present case. Therefore, on the basis of the decision<br \/>\n              rendered by the Supreme Court, no substantial question of<br \/>\n              law would arise on the finding of fact arrived at the by the<br \/>\n              Commissioner and the Tribunal&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>8.      We find that neither of the two situations which permit an interference<\/p>\n<p>ITA 1\/2007                                                                 page 5 of 6<br \/>\n with concurrent findings of fact arises in the present case. The present appeal<\/p>\n<p>is not a case where relevant evidence has not been considered nor is it a case<\/p>\n<p>where a finding has been returned by placing reliance on inadmissible<\/p>\n<p>evidence. Whatever is sought to be agitated before us was considered by the<\/p>\n<p>Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well the Tribunal. The<\/p>\n<p>Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have not<\/p>\n<p>placed reliance on any inadmissible evidence either. Consequently, the<\/p>\n<p>findings arrived at by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with. No substantial<\/p>\n<p>question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n<pre>\n\n\n\n\n                                             BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J\n\n\n\n                                                 SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J\n        FEBRUARY 24, 2010\n        mk\n\n\n\n\nITA 1\/2007                                                               page 6 of 6\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010 Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 24th February, 2010 + ITA 1\/2007 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX &#8230;.. Appellant -versus- FORECH INDIA LTD &#8230;.. Respondent Advocates who appeared in this [&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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-175584","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-05T02:24:52+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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T02:24:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1768,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T02:24:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-05T02:24:52+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T02:24:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010"},"wordCount":1768,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T02:24:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-forech-india-ltd-on-24-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Forech India Ltd on 24 February, 2010"}]},{"@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\/175584","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=175584"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/175584\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=175584"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=175584"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=175584"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}