{"id":182327,"date":"2008-06-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-06-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-27T16:19:17","modified_gmt":"2018-08-27T10:49:17","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Kerala Chemicals And … on 3 June, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Kerala Chemicals And … on 3 June, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nITA.No. 273 of 2002()\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. M\/S. KERALA CHEMICALS AND PROTEINS LTD.,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN (SR.)\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN\n\n Dated :03\/06\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n               C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR\n                    & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.\n           ---------------------------------------------\n              I.T.A.Nos.273, 256, 255, 234\n                        & 233 of 2002\n            ---------------------------------------------\n            Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008\n\n                       J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
Ramachandran Nair,J:\n<\/p>\n
           These appeals filed by the Revenue arise from<\/p>\n
the common order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Cochin Bench disposing of the assessee’s appeals for the<\/p>\n
assessment years 1993-94 to 1997-98.<\/p>\n
     2.    We      have      heard      the     Senior    Counsel<\/p>\n
Sri.P.K.R.Menon appearing for the appellant and the<\/p>\n
Senior Counsel Sri.P.Balachandran appearing for the<\/p>\n
respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     3.    The common issue raised for all the years is<\/p>\n
whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under<\/p>\n
Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter<\/p>\n
called ‘the Act’) in respect of the ‘third series’ of plant put<\/p>\n
up for production of ossein. In the course of assessment,<\/p>\n
the Assessing Officer conducted an inspection of the new<\/p>\n
plant for which Section 80-IA relief was claimed and he<\/p>\n
found that the plant is not a distinct and separate<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-2-:\n<\/p>\n
industrial unit inasmuch as certain common facilities are<\/p>\n
used for the new plant like conveyor system for raw<\/p>\n
materials, storage tanks etc. So far as storage tank for<\/p>\n
new plant is concerned, though the Assessing Officer<\/p>\n
has stated that he had difficulty to locate it, he has not<\/p>\n
stated that there was no separate storage tank for raw<\/p>\n
materials. In the appeal filed by the assessee, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal reversed the finding of the Assessing Officer<\/p>\n
and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), holding<\/p>\n
that the plant set up by the assessee is separate and<\/p>\n
distinct one entitling for relief under Section 80-IA of<\/p>\n
the Act.       The Tribunal was of the view that the<\/p>\n
investment attributable to common facilities of the old<\/p>\n
plant utilised in the new plant is very insignificant when<\/p>\n
compared to the total investment in the new plant. The<\/p>\n
Tribunal therefore allowed the assessee’s appeals by<\/p>\n
following two decisions of the Supreme Court, Textile<\/p>\n
Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Commissioner of<\/p>\n
Income-Tax, West Bengal<\/a> (107 I.T.R. 195) and<\/p>\n
Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal-I v.<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-3-:\n<\/p>\n
Indian Aluminium Co.Ltd. (108 I.T.R. 367).<\/p>\n
      4.     The contention of the Revenue is that the<\/p>\n
common facility utilised by the assessee for running the<\/p>\n
new plant is part of and is indispensable for the existing<\/p>\n
plant and so much so, balance new plant is not a new<\/p>\n
industry. The specific case of the Revenue is that the<\/p>\n
new industry cannot function on it’s own and so much<\/p>\n
so, it is not entitled to relief under Section 80-IA of the<\/p>\n
Act. The Senior counsel appearing for the assessee, on<\/p>\n
the other hand, contended that the new plant is separate<\/p>\n
and distinct in itself and the use of all facilities like<\/p>\n
conveyor system for raw materials, water storage tank<\/p>\n
etc. does not make it part of the old industry.         He<\/p>\n
specifically referred to substantial investment made,<\/p>\n
increase in production capacity etc. as factors proving<\/p>\n
for the setting up of a new plant. Reference is invited to<\/p>\n
the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Textile<\/p>\n
Machinery Corporation Ltd.’s case (cited supra) for<\/p>\n
deciding as to whether the industry set up in respect of<\/p>\n
which relief claimed under Section 80-IA is a new<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-4-:\n<\/p>\n
industry or not. The Tribunal has addressed on the tests<\/p>\n
laid down by the Supreme Court and came to the<\/p>\n
conclusion that all the tests are satisfied. The Revenue,<\/p>\n
however, is contesting the finding of fact by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
by stating that if the Tribunal wanted to enter into a<\/p>\n
finding different from what the Assessing Officer has<\/p>\n
done after inspection, they should have themselves<\/p>\n
visited the factory and physically verified the existence<\/p>\n
of the new plant. We have noticed from para 3 of the<\/p>\n
Tribunal’s order that the assessee was engaged in<\/p>\n
production in the existing two plants by using raw<\/p>\n
material that is, bone pieces of specified dimensions. It<\/p>\n
is further stated by the Tribunal that the ‘third series’<\/p>\n
plant was first put up to make the product from yet<\/p>\n
another dimension of bone pieces which appears to us to<\/p>\n
be smaller in size than the size that is used in the other<\/p>\n
existing two plants.           If raw materials of different<\/p>\n
dimensions are used in the new plant, then such items<\/p>\n
could not be used in the existing plant. Thus, the same<\/p>\n
itself is indicative of setting up of a new industry. Even<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-5-:\n<\/p>\n
though the contention of counsel for the Revenue that<\/p>\n
the new plant is only an expansion of the existing<\/p>\n
business, is correct, we find from the Indian<\/p>\n
Aluminium Companies case decided by the Supreme<\/p>\n
Court that the industry set up under an expansion<\/p>\n
scheme also is entitled to the benefit.     In the normal<\/p>\n
course, we should accept the finding of facts by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal pertaining to the set up of new industry if it is<\/p>\n
based on cogent and acceptable evidence.         However,<\/p>\n
since the Assessing Officer has conducted an inspection<\/p>\n
and disallowance is made, based on findings, we feel, it<\/p>\n
would have been desirable for the Tribunal also to have<\/p>\n
verified the facts by itself by conducting an inspection.<\/p>\n
      5. The Senior counsel for the Revenue contended<\/p>\n
that the Tribunal has no new material to arrive at a<\/p>\n
conclusion different from what the Assessing Officer has<\/p>\n
recorded. He has therefore pressed for requirement of<\/p>\n
inspection by the Tribunal to enter into a finding as to<\/p>\n
whether the claim of setting up of a new industry by the<\/p>\n
assessee is correct or not. It is not known, whether, in<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-6-:\n<\/p>\n
the course of time, there is re-structuring of the industry<\/p>\n
or whether there is any change that will make it difficult<\/p>\n
for the Tribunal to ascertain the position pertaining to<\/p>\n
14 years back now. In any case, since counsel for the<\/p>\n
Revenue has pressed for inspection by the Tribunal<\/p>\n
before rendering a decision and since no new materials<\/p>\n
are brought forward apart from the inspection report by<\/p>\n
the officer which in our mind is not full and complete,<\/p>\n
we feel that an inspection by the Tribunal is desirable.<\/p>\n
We therefore, set aside the orders of the Tribunal<\/p>\n
pertaining to granting of allowance under Section 80-IA<\/p>\n
of the Act and the Tribunal is directed to conduct an<\/p>\n
inspection with notice to the parties. The Assessee’s<\/p>\n
technical staff should render assistance to the Tribunal<\/p>\n
to identify the new plant i.e., the ‘third series’ ossein<\/p>\n
plant in respect of which Section 80-IA relief is claimed<\/p>\n
and will explain the process of manufacture and the role<\/p>\n
of the equipments to the Tribunal. It would be open to<\/p>\n
the Department to render assistance to the Tribunal by<\/p>\n
rendering technical expert to inspect the plant.       The<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-7-:\n<\/p>\n
Tribunal is directed to conduct an inspection and issue<\/p>\n
copies of the report of findings to both the assessee and<\/p>\n
the Revenue.         The Tribunal will decide the matter<\/p>\n
afresh, without any delay.\n<\/p>\n
      6.     Additional issues raised by the Revenue<\/p>\n
pertain to the assessment year 1997-98. The first issue<\/p>\n
is disallowance of R & D Cess of Rs.2,51,594\/- paid to<\/p>\n
the Central Government under the R & D Cess Act. The<\/p>\n
claim was disallowed by the Assessing Officer, since the<\/p>\n
assessee has shown the payment as ‘the expenditure<\/p>\n
pending allocation’ in its accounts. Since the conditions<\/p>\n
laid down in Section 43B have been satisfied in this<\/p>\n
case, the Tribunal allowed the claim         following the<\/p>\n
decision of the Supreme Court in Tuticorin Alkali<\/p>\n
Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd. v. C.I.T. (227 I.T.R.<\/p>\n
172). The finding of the Tribunal is that whatever be the<\/p>\n
pattern of accounting of the amount, the assessee has<\/p>\n
incurred a statutory liability. In fact, there was liability<\/p>\n
to pay the cess and the same was, in fact, paid in the<\/p>\n
previous year relevant to the assessment year. We find<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-8-:\n<\/p>\n
that the payment is under a central legislation and is in<\/p>\n
the nature of cess which is rightly allowed by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal under Section 43B of the Act. We therefore<\/p>\n
decline to interfere with the finding of the Income Tax<\/p>\n
Appellate Tribunal on this issue.\n<\/p>\n
      7.     The next issue pertains to disallowance of<\/p>\n
deduction claimed under Section 35-AB of the Act for<\/p>\n
the technical know-how fees paid for the expansion of<\/p>\n
project for setting up of a plant for production of<\/p>\n
gellatin. Here again, the Assessing Officer noticed that<\/p>\n
expenditure was capitalised by the assessee under the<\/p>\n
head      ‘expenditure       pending     allocation’.  The<\/p>\n
Department’s case is that the technical know-how fee<\/p>\n
paid is capital in nature and the assessee has shown it so<\/p>\n
in the account and therefore, they are not entitled to<\/p>\n
deduction. However, the contention of the assessee is<\/p>\n
that the two conditions for allowance under Section<\/p>\n
35-AB are that the payment is in the nature of technical<\/p>\n
know-how fee and is for business purposes.             The<\/p>\n
Tribunal entered into a finding that the technical service<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                  :-9-:\n<\/p>\n
fee paid by the assessee for acquiring the know-how was<\/p>\n
for setting up the project for manufacturing of gellatine<\/p>\n
from ossein. Since the gellatine is the final product of<\/p>\n
the assessee and the know-how acquired for setting up<\/p>\n
the plant for production of article is for business<\/p>\n
purpose,      we are of the view that the Tribunal has<\/p>\n
rightly referred to the similar provisions contained in<\/p>\n
Section 36(1)(iii) of the Act and held that the<\/p>\n
expenditure is for the purpose of business.              We,<\/p>\n
therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the<\/p>\n
order of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
      8.     The last ground raised pertains to the<\/p>\n
disallowance of cash payment made in excess of<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- in terms of Section 40 A(3) of the Act. The<\/p>\n
Assessing Officer made disallowance by adding all the<\/p>\n
payments in cash made to same party. However, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal held that disallowance should be made only in<\/p>\n
respect of each and              every payment made above<\/p>\n
Rs.20,000\/- other than through cheque or demand draft.<\/p>\n
Since      the     amendment         authorising clubbing of<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                 :-10-:\n<\/p>\n
expenditure for the purpose of disallowance is to take<\/p>\n
place in the next financial year, the Tribunal’s order to<\/p>\n
make the disallowance with reference to the individual<\/p>\n
payments is perfectly correct. We therefore decline to<\/p>\n
interfere with the Tribunal’s order on this issue.<\/p>\n
      9.     The     last   contention   raised pertains to<\/p>\n
disallowance of total sum of Rs.6,56,070\/- which is an<\/p>\n
expenditure relating to scrapped K.P.gelatine project<\/p>\n
and expenditure for gel bone development.               The<\/p>\n
Tribunal’s finding is that the part of expenditure       is<\/p>\n
incurred in the form of payment towards consultant’s<\/p>\n
fees for conducting the feasibility study.        Since the<\/p>\n
expenditure was incurred for conducting feasibility<\/p>\n
study for expansion of the business, it was allowed. We<\/p>\n
concur with the finding of the Tribunal that both items<\/p>\n
of expenditure are in the nature of business expenditure<\/p>\n
allowable under the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the<\/p>\n
Tribunal’s order for 1993-94 is sustained except on the<\/p>\n
issue pertaining to Section 80-IA of the Act. Similarly,<\/p>\n
I.T.A.No.255 of 2002 pertaining to the year 1997-98 will<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                 :-11-:\n<\/p>\n
stand dismissed, except on the issue pertaining to<\/p>\n
deduction under Section 80-IA of the Act which stands<\/p>\n
remanded along with other case.             The Tribunal is<\/p>\n
directed to dispose of the appeals afresh after inspection<\/p>\n
and within a period of three months from the date of<\/p>\n
receipt of a copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                              C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,
\n                                            Judge<\/p>\n
                                        V.K.MOHANAN,
\n                                            Judge<\/p>\n
MBS\/<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                 :-12-:\n<\/p>\n
                              C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &
\n                                      V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                    I.T.A.Nos. 273,256,255, 234<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
                                                  & 233 of 2002\n<\/p>\n
                                  ———————————————\n<\/p>\n
                                    –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                             J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                                          DATED: 03-06-2008<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                 :-13-:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                       P.R.RAMAN &<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                 :-14-:\n<\/p>\n
                                      V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.\n<\/p>\n
                                  ——————————————–<\/p>\n
                                           O.P.NO. OF 2001\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                      ————————————\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                             J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
                                         DATED: -2007<\/p>\n
I.T.A.Nos. 273 of 2002 & connect. cases<\/p>\n
                                 :-15-:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Kerala Chemicals And … on 3 June, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ITA.No. 273 of 2002() 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN … Petitioner Vs 1. M\/S. KERALA CHEMICALS AND PROTEINS LTD., … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL,GOI(TAXES) For Respondent :SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN […]<\/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-182327","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. Kerala Chemicals And ... on 3 June, 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008\" \/>\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. Kerala Chemicals And ... on 3 June, 2008 - 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-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-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=\"2008-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-27T10:49:17+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=\"11 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-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S. Kerala Chemicals And … on 3 June, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-27T10:49:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2069,\"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-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S. Kerala Chemicals And ... on 3 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-27T10:49:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#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. Kerala Chemicals And … on 3 June, 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:\\\/\\\/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. Kerala Chemicals And ... on 3 June, 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Kerala Chemicals And ... on 3 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-27T10:49:17+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Kerala Chemicals And … on 3 June, 2008","datePublished":"2008-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-27T10:49:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008"},"wordCount":2069,"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-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S. Kerala Chemicals And ... on 3 June, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-27T10:49:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-kerala-chemicals-and-on-3-june-2008#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. Kerala Chemicals And … on 3 June, 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:\/\/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\/182327","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=182327"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/182327\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=182327"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=182327"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=182327"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}