{"id":188782,"date":"2010-03-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-03-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010"},"modified":"2017-12-06T04:02:04","modified_gmt":"2017-12-05T22:32:04","slug":"commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp;<\/div>\n<pre>   Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n\n  \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/454\/2009\t 6\/ 6\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 454 of 2009\n \n\n \n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA  \nHONOURABLE\nMS. JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n \n \n=========================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo\n\t\t\tbe referred to the Reporter or not ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-I - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nARVIND\nPRODUCTS LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n========================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR MANISH R\nBHATT, SR. STANDING COUNSEL with MRS MAUNA M BHATT\nfor Appellant(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Opponent(s) : 1, \n=========================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n                              and\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS. JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 09\/03\/2010 \n\n \n\n \nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>                                       (Per :\n<\/p>\n<p>HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthis Tax Appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the<br \/>\nAct) filed by Revenue for assessment year 1997-98, following question<br \/>\nof law stated to be substantial question of law has been proposed:-\n<\/p>\n<p> Whether<br \/>\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the<br \/>\norder passed by the CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to allow<br \/>\nhigher claim of depreciation to the assessee on the basis of the<br \/>\nvaluation of the assets submitted on 22\/09\/1998?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThe<br \/>\nfacts which are not in dispute.  The respondent assessee Company<br \/>\npurchased a textile unit named  Ankur Textile  from Arvind Mills<br \/>\nLimited with effect from 18th May, 1996.  After the<br \/>\nacquisition of the undertaking in order to account various assets it<br \/>\nits books of accounts, the assessee obtained a valuation report and<br \/>\nrecorded the value of each asset as per the value assigned to the<br \/>\nsaid asset in the valuation report.  In the return of income<br \/>\noriginally filed, the assessee Company claimed depreciation on the<br \/>\nwritten down value of these assets appearing in the tax records of<br \/>\nthe seller on the date of sale.  Vide letter dated 22nd<br \/>\nSeptember, 1998, a revised claim of depreciation was made by the<br \/>\nassessee.  The said claim was not entertained by the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer on the ground that in absence of any revised return, the<br \/>\nclaim could not be processed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\t\tThe<br \/>\nassessee carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nwho vide order no. CIT(A) V\/Jt.CIT(A)SR-1\/48\/00-01 dated 20th<br \/>\nSeptember, 2000 partly allowed the appeal and restored two issues to<br \/>\nthe file of the Assessing Officer, one of them being claim of revised<br \/>\ndepreciation to be decided on merits.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe second round, the Assessing Officer after calling for details<br \/>\nfrom the assessee processed the claim for depreciation of merits and<br \/>\ncame to the conclusion that the claim for depreciation as per<br \/>\nvaluation report could not be accepted in view of Explanation 2 to<br \/>\nSection 43(6) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\t\tThe<br \/>\nassessee carried the matter in appeal before Commissioner (Appeals)<br \/>\nbut failed.  Hence, assessee filed Second Appeal before the Tribunal.<br \/>\n The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 15th February,<br \/>\n2008 held that the assessee was entitled to the claim of depreciation<br \/>\nand directed the Assessing Office to allow the depreciation on the<br \/>\nbasis of the valuation of the assets submitted on 22nd<br \/>\nSeptember, 1998.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\t\tAssailing<br \/>\nthe aforesaid order, learned senior Standing Counsel appearing for<br \/>\nappellant Revenue submitted that the Tribunal had committed an error<br \/>\nin law in entertaining the appeal of the assessee in light of the<br \/>\nfact that Supreme Court in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. vs.<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income-Tax, (2006)<br \/>\n284 ITR 323 has laid down that a claim for deduction<br \/>\notherwise than by a revised return was not permissible.  Alternative<br \/>\nsubmission was that if the Assessing Officer could not entertain the<br \/>\nclaim in absence of revised return, no relief could be granted even<br \/>\nby the Tribunal.  Second alternative contention was to the effect<br \/>\nthat the impugned order of Tribunal did not record any finding on<br \/>\nmerits of the controversy and, therefore, also the impugned order of<br \/>\nTribunal gave rise to the substantive question of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.1\t\tElaborating<br \/>\non the first two contentions, it was submitted that Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals) while passing the order dated 20th September,<br \/>\n2000 could not have issued any direction to the Assessing Officer to<br \/>\nentertain the claim on merits as no revised return had been filed in<br \/>\nlight of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Goetze (India)<br \/>\nLtd. (supra).\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\t\tAs<br \/>\ncan be seen from the impugned order of Tribunal in the appeal filed<br \/>\nby the assessee, the only contention raised by Revenue through its<br \/>\ndepartmental representative was based on the judgment of the Supreme<br \/>\nCourt.  The contention as recorded by the Tribunal reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p> 8.<br \/>\n The learned DR on the other hand, submitted that the assessee has<br \/>\nnot originally claimed the depreciation on the basis of valuation<br \/>\nreport.  The claim of depreciation was revised subsequently vide<br \/>\nletter dated 02-09-98 during the course of assessment proceedings.<br \/>\nThe CIT(A) should not have directed the AO to consider the revised<br \/>\nclaim in view of the decision of the Hon&#8217;ble Supreme Court in the<br \/>\ncase of GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V CIT (2006) 284 ITR 323 (SC).\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\t\tHence,<br \/>\nit is apparent  that Revenue had not raised any challenge on merits<br \/>\nof the claim before the Tribunal.  Therefore, if the Tribunal did not<br \/>\nrecord any finding on merits by way of an elaborate discussion, no<br \/>\nfault can be found with the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\t\tHowever,<br \/>\nfactually, the submission that the Tribunal has not recorded any<br \/>\nfinding on facts is an incorrect statement.  The findings recorded in<br \/>\nearlier part of paragraph No.9 of the order of Tribunal categorically<br \/>\nrecord that Explanation 2 to Section 43(6) of the Act will not apply<br \/>\nin the case of the assessee.  This is preceded by narration of facts<br \/>\nand reasons as to why the said Explanation is not applicable.  In the<br \/>\ncircumstances, the submission that there is no finding on merits by<br \/>\nthe Tribunal is without any substance.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\t\tInsofar<br \/>\nas applicability of the Supreme Court judgment is concerned, suffice<br \/>\nit to state that the approach of the Tribunal is correct in law.  The<br \/>\nTribunal has rightly noted that the order made by Commissioner<br \/>\n(Appeals) on 20th September, 2000 had not been challenged<br \/>\nby Revenue and, therefore, it attained finality.  Even the subsequent<br \/>\norder made by the Assessing Officer in the second round decides the<br \/>\nclaim on merits  only and therefore also, it is not open to Revenue<br \/>\nto indirectly challenge the order of Commissioner (Appeals) made on<br \/>\n20th September, 2000 which had not been challenged till<br \/>\nthis point of time.  If such contention is accepted, it would give a<br \/>\ngo bye to statutory period of limitation prescribed for preferring an<br \/>\nappeal and it is not possible to permit any side to raise an issue<br \/>\nwhich had attained finality, with the parties acting on the direction<br \/>\nmade in the order at the relevant point of time.\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\t\tIt<br \/>\nis also necessary to note that the order of Apex Court in the case of<br \/>\nGoetze (India) Ltd. (supra) was only in relation to the power of the<br \/>\nAssessing Officer to entertain a claim for deduction otherwise  than<br \/>\nby filing a revised return.  The Apex Court has made it clear that<br \/>\n the issue in this case is limited to the power of the assessing<br \/>\nauthority and does not impinge on the power of the Income Tax<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal under Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>12.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe circumstances, the entire contention based on application of<br \/>\ndecision in case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (supra) is misconceived in<br \/>\nlaw.\n<\/p>\n<p>13.\t\tIn<br \/>\nthe circumstances, on none of the grounds pleaded or urged at the<br \/>\ntime of hearing does the impugned order of Tribunal give rise to any<br \/>\nquestion of law, much less a substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>14.\t\tThe<br \/>\nappeal is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(<br \/>\nD.A. Mehta, J. )<\/p>\n<p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t(<br \/>\nHarsha Devani, J. )<\/p>\n<p>hki<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010 Author: D.A.Mehta,&amp;Nbsp;Honourable Ms.Justice H.N.Devani,&amp;Nbsp; Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/454\/2009 6\/ 6 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 454 of 2009 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI ========================================= 1 Whether Reporters [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188782","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-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 vs In on 9 March, 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-vs-in-on-9-march-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-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=\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-05T22:32:04+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=\"7 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-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T22:32:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1179,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-05T22:32:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 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 vs In on 9 March, 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-vs-in-on-9-march-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-05T22:32:04+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010","datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T22:32:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010"},"wordCount":1179,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010","name":"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-03-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-05T22:32:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-in-on-9-march-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs In on 9 March, 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\/188782","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=188782"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188782\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188782"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188782"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188782"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}