{"id":181466,"date":"2008-09-23T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-09-22T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008"},"modified":"2014-04-30T14:12:49","modified_gmt":"2014-04-30T08:42:49","slug":"ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: V.G Sabhahit S.N.Satyanarayana<\/div>\n
HUBLI\u00abS6f) 020.\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA\n\nCIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAE)\n\nDATED THIS THE 232\u00bb my on' SEFVPEMBER 2002:\"--- A ' H' A\n\nPRESENT _\nTHE HONBLE MRJUSTICE  -x  \n'THE HONBLE MRJU STICE $3-A'I'YANA_RA\u00a5AAl**\u00a7AV\":~--;\nINCOME TAX APPEALNEX219\/QG04 -  \nBetween: \" K\" ' -- . V. n \n\ns.RAMESHVMAH...:<;<31?HaR;;,._  __ \nAGED ABOUT 44'\u00a5JEARS",V _  _\ns\/0 SR; HI_RAc}1AN:::~,a._\u00bb KO'I'HA'i?1 -- -\nPARTNER,  . . \nM {s 3. MAHENDRA 3s--BI2=:3s,, _ '\nDURGADBAIL,"?.OR1', A \n\n APPELLANT\n\nE33\u00bb Sri. S.PAI\u00a7T}--IASARATHI, ADV, )\n\n" ~  1 'j .ms.1gD- 1(3), HUESLI.\n\nTHE 1Nt::~}iE TAX OFFICER\n... RESPONDENT'<\/pre>\n
 ;;(B’y-.  ‘:91 v SH ESHACHALA, ADV. ,)<\/p>\n
THIS I.’I’.A FILED U\/S. 260A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,<\/p>\n
A A ” “1961 ARIS\u00a5NC’z OUT OF’ ORDER’ DATEQ 17.12.2003 PASSED HQ<\/p>\n
ETA NOA50\/BANG\/2003 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-
\n99 PRAYING THAT THIS HON’}}3LE COURT MAY BE PLEASEE) T0
\nFORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF’ LAW STATES
\nT1-IEREIN AND ALLOW THE APPEAL ANS SET ASIDE THE
\nORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BEARING ITA $10,450\/BANG\/2003<\/p>\n
DATED 23.12.2003 ON THE VAIJDETY OF’ ASSESSMENT FOR
\nTHE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ETC.  <\/p>\n
THIS ETA comma on FOR HEARENG f;*\u00a7i’i’s”‘ –<\/p>\n
SABI-KAHIT J2, DELIVERED THE FOLLOVHNG:<\/p>\n
Jtmeuszrr <\/p>\n
This appeal is by thtieassesseewi ugdef <\/p>\n
260-A of the Income Tax Act,s_.1.\u00a76.1   by
\nthe order passed  is\ufb01tehes  . 51’sx Appellate
\nTribunal, Ba11gsio;’e    in ITA
\nNo.450 1ss7.~1:\u00e9g2o_G3k’ confrmirlg the
\norder  Cemmissioner of Income Tax<\/p>\n
(Appeals), “Hub1i, ‘g1s.tedV:’::_i\u00a37.2.20O3, who inturn had<\/p>\n
 _  the er*<ier__'pa.ssed by the Assessing Authority<\/p>\n
 'v._1ci:~rftV;ec!.V2Q_,3.2\u00a750l., wherein the transaction declared in<\/p>\n
 as unexplained investment under<\/p>\n
 ' {Sec1:ie1:…   the Income Tax Act, 196i (for short the<\/p>\n
2. The essential facts of the ease leading up to<\/p>\n
VA  ”  appeal are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\\\/we<\/p>\n
The assessee \ufb01led return of iI1come4~\u00bb..l_:etl;l~.._<\/p>\n
23.11.1998 declaring a total income of Rs.   <\/p>\n
and the case was selected for  H   <\/p>\n
approval of the Additional ‘ 11’<\/p>\n
Tax, Range 1, Hubli. The_V:”‘~~assessee . some VA<\/p>\n
Assessment Year 1998f99  *  term
\ncapital loss for la   and notice
\nwas issued    of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
The assessee   copy of the
\napplicaiioi\u00e9 scheme, 1997 as also
\n   “said application and<\/p>\n
contended’    and diamonds which are<\/p>\n
  gnatteze-~ef’sale and declared in the regular<\/p>\n
  ” articles which are the subject<\/p>\n
 oflvap\ufb01i\ufb01ca\ufb01on \ufb01led under VDIS Scheme, 1997<\/p>\n
 wl\ufb01erefore, no tax can be levied under Section 68<\/p>\n
   Act. The return \ufb01led by the appellant was<\/p>\n
   and the assessment was completed under<\/p>\n
Section 143(3) of the Act. 011 29.3.2001, wherein the<\/p>\n
assessing authority found that the transactions in<\/p>\n
regard to the sale of jewellery declared under VDIS was
\n\\2~\/”\n<\/p>\n
not genuine insofar as Sri Kailash Rawal, I’I’0pIiCl1OIiCif<\/p>\n
Sri Mahaiaxmi Jewellers to whom the ass\ufb01\ufb01l A’ <\/p>\n
sold the gold jewellery after oonversion into  1  ”  l <\/p>\n
not proved by the assessee   V\u00bb is <\/p>\n
sale of diamonds also hasV\u00bb’no_t ” proxretl tile .<\/p>\n
assessee, aeeorrlirigly, the  treated
\nthe profits on sale of   tlialmont-is
\nas unexplained iI1\\feste:te:1t_   return of
\nthe        1. Being
\nagg’ieveti__       authority,
\nthe   before the Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Income   the order passed by the<\/p>\n
 Assess\ufb01iem A1it’:hlority:was con\ufb01rmed in the appeal.<\/p>\n
  by the order dated 27.2.2003, the<\/p>\n
  an appeal before the Income Tax<\/p>\n
V  Bangalore Bench ‘C’, Bangalore<\/p>\n
.  V’ ‘the Vvllrleome Tax Appellate Tribunal confirmed the<\/p>\n
 Hlpassed by the Commissioner of Income Tax<\/p>\n
  who in turn con\ufb01rmed the order of the<\/p>\n
Assessing Of\ufb01eer insofar as it relates to the transaction<\/p>\n
of sales of jewellary to M\/’ s Mahalaxmi Jewellers,<\/p>\n
‘\\,..\/”\n<\/p>\n
Hubli, however reversed the finding of<\/p>\n
Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)  <\/p>\n
order passed by the Assessing Autlioxity    <\/p>\n
of diamonds and held that the  <\/p>\n
diamonds to M\/s _VJeVv2ve1l{ers, = VA<\/p>\n
Binal Gems and M\/s emit    said
\nto be unexplained   has been
\nproved and alloww    Being
\naggrieved     Income Tax
\n  of jewellery to M\/s
\n 1  appeal is \ufb01led under Section<\/p>\n
260-15; of iliaet, 1961.\n<\/p>\n
  Q   We  the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
  it u<\/p>\n
  Tliere is no merit in the contention of the<\/p>\n
e     appearing for the appellant that the<\/p>\n
  _  Officer has admitted in the assessment order<\/p>\n
 V   it the bullion that is sold is made out of jewellary<\/p>\n
and the subject matter of application \ufb01led under VDIS,<\/p>\n
97. As it is clear from the order passed by the<\/p>\n
\\,,\/Q<\/p>\n
Assessing Of\ufb01cer that the said Hansaction has <\/p>\n
referred only to give deduction to the tax  ” <\/p>\n
already been paid and there is no \ufb01nding  ”  ”  <\/p>\n
the transaction rekating to sale of   _ <\/p>\n
the same jewellery decIared5i;.1   V.<\/p>\n
under VDIS and for the same  t1ie1*e\u00e9_VV:isV’:nof;n1eI’it
\nin the obeervation   o:\u00a7ieIt_oi’ “the Incoele Tax
\nAppellate Tribune}    ihrelaling to<\/p>\n
diamond    ‘Ky mean that<\/p>\n
the buuio\ufb01eeai-it :5: eggzaeagjeewsma1; alaxmi Jeweilers is<\/p>\n
the san:ge.3\u00a2we11eiy\u00a7%\u00e91\u00a2\u00a21a:feciomder VDIS, 1997.<\/p>\n
3    to the contenuons urged, the<\/p>\n
V.   .VV:4A’*\u00abs;guest1on of law arises for our<\/p>\n
dete:f;_n1rxei1;1o:1AV.i1;1*i”‘t1ns appeal is:<\/p>\n
o ~  ‘Whether the \ufb01nding ofthe Income Tax
\n Appezzate Tribunal oon\ufb01nning the order
\n “passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax
\n(Appeals) and the Assessing o\ufb01ioer that the
\nincomebywayofsaleofjeweltaryto
\nM75 Mahalaxmt Jewellers is an unexplained
\ninvestment is perverse or arbitrary for non-<\/p>\n
yo}<\/p>\n
consideration of material fact, as to whether .
\nthe goods that are sold under the<\/p>\n
transactions relied upon by the assesse
\nthe same goods which had been   ”
\nunder the application filed  VoZiif:tej:y””V   <\/p>\n
Dedarazion of Income   z fl ‘<\/p>\n
6. The above said
\nhas been answered   faets  No.
\n186\/2004 by hoiding  as to whether<\/p>\n
the jewellary     xeetter of sale<\/p>\n
decIere<i"if1  am' the same subject
\nmatter the  \ufb01nder voxs, 97 and the<\/p>\n
said deeisioti me  appeal would decide the<\/p>\n
 V' question..;-eVasve\u00ab nto w'hei\ufb01er the income from the said<\/p>\n
  be unexplained investment under<\/p>\n
 69.  Act. If the aseessee is able to prove<\/p>\n
  tilevjfsunion that was sold was made out of the<\/p>\n
   declared in the application under VDIS 97,<\/p>\n
 ’11’ VA said amount realised to the said transaction would<\/p>\n
VA  ~ ” not amount to unexplairxed investment under Section<\/p>\n
69 of the Act. However, if the assessee is not able to<\/p>\n
prove that the goods that is the subject matter of<\/p>\n
\\,,.\/”\n<\/p>\n
transaction as declared in the regular returns is magdej<\/p>\n
out of the same jewellary which was  ” <\/p>\n
application \ufb01led under VDIS 97, the  9′  _  <\/p>\n
realised to the said uansaetiori   <\/p>\n
unexplained investment undeij Sectio\ufb01 69   9′<\/p>\n
Accordingly, for the
\nappeal I.T.A.No. 186\/0-4;,’_”‘:’;ve :1_a;t~isr,1;e substantiai
\nquestion of law had to  and
\naccordingly,     it<\/p>\n
     by the Income Tax
\n9  nApV’pe~iiate_Afi’Iiburia1, Bangalore Bench ‘C’ in
\n  :vIifo;4f50\/Bang\/2003 for the assessment
\n  1998-99 con\ufb01rming the order passed<\/p>\n
.9  the Commissioner of Income Tax
\n(Appeals) dated 27.2.2003 who inturn had
\nconfirmed the order passed by the
\nAssessing Officer insofar as it relates to sale<\/p>\n
of jewellary to M] s Mahalaxmi Jewellaiy is<\/p>\n
set aside and the matter is remitted to the<\/p>\n
\\},,}x<\/p>\n
Tl<\/p>\n
Income Tax O\ufb02icer, Ward No.1(3), <\/p>\n
for fresh consideration of the V-V.   _<\/p>\n
accordance with law  the _-\n<\/p>\n
obscxva\ufb01ons made       <\/p>\n
judgment. ‘
\n%9;f3″d9\u00b0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008 Author: V.G Sabhahit S.N.Satyanarayana HUBLI\u00abS6f) 020. IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAE) DATED THIS THE 232\u00bb my on’ SEFVPEMBER 2002:”— A ‘ H’ A PRESENT _ THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE -x ‘THE HONBLE MRJU STICE $3-A’I’YANA_RA\u00a5AAl**\u00a7AV”:~–; INCOME […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-181466","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008 - 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\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-04-30T08:42:49+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\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-30T08:42:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1096,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008\",\"name\":\"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-04-30T08:42:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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":"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008 - 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\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-04-30T08:42:49+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\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008","datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-30T08:42:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008"},"wordCount":1096,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008","name":"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-09-22T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-04-30T08:42:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-h-kothari-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-23-september-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh H Kothari vs The Income Tax Officer on 23 September, 2008"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/181466","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=181466"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/181466\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=181466"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=181466"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=181466"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}