{"id":188903,"date":"2007-09-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007"},"modified":"2017-12-25T12:48:46","modified_gmt":"2017-12-25T07:18:46","slug":"commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H S Bedi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B.Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4262 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Income Tax,Salem\n\nRESPONDENT:\nP.V.Kalyanasundaram\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/09\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B.SINHA &amp; HARJIT SINGH BEDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NO 4262 \/ 2007<br \/>\n(arising out of SLP) No. 16462\/2006)<\/p>\n<p>HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\t\tThis appeal by way of special leave is directed<br \/>\nagainst the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High<br \/>\nCourt dated 08th February 2006 whereby the appeal filed by<br \/>\nthe Revenue under section 260 A of the Income-tax Act 1961<br \/>\n(hereinafter called the &#8220;Act&#8221;) against the order of the Income-<br \/>\ntax Tribunal allegedly raising questions of law has been<br \/>\ndismissed on the premise that no substantial question of law in<br \/>\nfact arose for consideration.  The facts leading to the appeal<br \/>\nare as under:-\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe respondent-assessee vide a registered sale deed dated<br \/>\n26.10.1998 purchased certain land at Brindavan Road,<br \/>\nFairlands, Salem for a sum of Rs.4.10 lakhs.  During a search<br \/>\nof the office and residential premises of Polimer Net Work,<br \/>\ncertain notes on loose sheets allegedly in the hands of the<br \/>\nrespondent were found and seized by the department.  In his<br \/>\nstatement recorded on 8.12.1998, the assessee submitted that<br \/>\nhe could not remember as to why the notings had been made.<br \/>\nThe statement was further confirmed by another statement on<br \/>\n11.12.1998.  The department also recorded the statement of the<br \/>\nvendor Rajarathinam on 8.12.1998 which too was confirmed<br \/>\non 11.12.1998 in which he admitted that he had in fact received<br \/>\na total consideration of Rs. 34.35 lakhs and that the sum of Rs.<br \/>\n4.10 lakhs reflected in the sale deed had been received by him<br \/>\nby way of a demand draft and the balance in cash.<br \/>\nRajarathinam however retracted from his statement on<br \/>\n8.1.1999 and filed an affidavit deposing that the sale price was<br \/>\nRs.4.10 lakhs only and that his statements earlier given to the<br \/>\nauthorities were incorrect.  In a subsequent statement<br \/>\nrecorded on 20.11.2000 Rajarathinam again reverted to his<br \/>\nearlier portion and deposed that the sale price was Rs.34.85<br \/>\nlakhs.  The Assessing Officer concluded that the sale<br \/>\nconsideration was actually Rs. 34.85 lakhs and not Rs.4.10<br \/>\nlakhs as had been recited in the sale deed.  He accordingly<br \/>\nadopted the aforesaid enhanced figure for the purpose of<br \/>\nassessment and made an addition of Rs.3.75.005\/- as<br \/>\nundisclosed income for the broken period 1.4.1998 to<br \/>\n8.12.1998.  The matter was thereafter taken to the<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who after examining<br \/>\nthe entire matter, observed that the statements given by<br \/>\nRajarathinam could not be relied upon more particularly as<br \/>\nthe floor price fixed by the authorities for such property was<br \/>\nmuch lower than the value which would result if the sale deed<br \/>\nhad been registered at Rs.34.85 lakhs.  The Commissioner<br \/>\naccordingly deleted the addition made.  An appeal was<br \/>\nthereafter preferred by the Revenue against the order of the<br \/>\nCommissioner before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.  The<br \/>\nTribunal in its order dated   6th July 2005 held that the notings<br \/>\non the loose pieces of paper on the basis of which  the initial<br \/>\nsuspicion  with regard to the under valuation had been raised<br \/>\nwere vague and could not be relied upon  as it appeared that<br \/>\nthe total area with respect to the sale deeds and that reflected<br \/>\nin the loose sheet was discrepant.  It was also observed that as<br \/>\nper the guidelines for registration the fair value for<br \/>\nregistration on the relevant date was Rs.244\/- to Rs.400\/- per<br \/>\ns.ft. and the sale consideration for Rs.850\/- per s.ft.  claimed by<br \/>\nthe Revenue was unrealistic and ignored the ground situation.<br \/>\nIt was further held that the tax of approximately Rs. 1.84,000\/-<br \/>\ndetermined on the basis of the addition would not show that<br \/>\nthe assessee had acquiesced in the addition made by the<br \/>\ndepartment or that it was conclusive evidence  of the sale price<br \/>\nas the deposit had been made  in an obvious effort to save<br \/>\nhimself from further harassment from the revenue and to<br \/>\nescape a much higher liability to the payment of tax on<br \/>\nundisclosed income should proceedings under section 158 BD<br \/>\nof the Act be initiated.  On these findings, the Tribunal<br \/>\ndismissed the appeal.  It is in these circumstances that an<br \/>\nappeal under section 260-A was filed in the High Court.<br \/>\nBefore the High Court the following substantial questions of<br \/>\nlaw were raised:-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)Whether or not when the Returns and the<br \/>\nStatements of the seller admit higher sale<br \/>\nconsideration actually received, the revenue is<br \/>\njustified in fixing the sale consideration at the higher<br \/>\namount than what has been declared?\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)When the assessee did not give any explanation to<br \/>\nthe notings found and at the same time the revenue<br \/>\nis able to corroborate the same with the statement of<br \/>\nthe seller for the purpose of determination of actual<br \/>\nsale value, would the lower authority be justified in<br \/>\ninterfering with the same?\n<\/p>\n<p>  )When consistent sworn were taken into<br \/>\nconsideration along with evidences found at the time<br \/>\nof search, would all be liable to be rejected on the<br \/>\nbasis of one statement in between contradicting the<br \/>\nearlier ones which was also explained away as a<br \/>\nresult of intimidation?\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\t\t\tThe High Court relying heavily on the order of the<br \/>\nCommissioner and the Tribunal held that no substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law had been raised and accordingly dismissed<br \/>\nthe appeal.  It is this situation that the present matter is here<br \/>\nbefore us.\n<\/p>\n<p>      5.\t\tMr. G.N. Vahanvati, the learned Solicitor General<br \/>\nhas at the very outset raised serious objection to the order of<br \/>\nthe High Court pointing out that Division Bench had merely<br \/>\nplagiarized substantial portions from the order of the<br \/>\nCommissioner and Tribunal in arriving at its conclusion and<br \/>\nno independent assessment on the questions of law that arose<br \/>\nfor consideration, had been made.  He also pointed out that<br \/>\nseveral questions of law pertaining to the implications of the<br \/>\nstatements and the counter statements made by<br \/>\nRajarathinam did arise in the case and the matter had not<br \/>\nbeen dealt with by the High Court in that perspective and it<br \/>\nwas therefore appropriate that the matter be remitted for<br \/>\nfresh decision.  The learned counsel representing the assessee<br \/>\nrespondent has however pointed out that the Commissioner<br \/>\nof Income-tax in particular, had after a very elaborate<br \/>\ndiscussion of the matter, concluded on a finding of fact with<br \/>\nregard to the nature of the transaction and this view had been<br \/>\naccepted by the Tribunal as well.  He has accordingly<br \/>\nsubmitted that no substantial questions of law have been<br \/>\nraised in this matter and the issues raised were purely<br \/>\nquestions of fact.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tWe have heard the learned counsel for the parties and<br \/>\nhave gone through the record.  It is true that the Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court has borrowed extensively from the<br \/>\norders of the Tribunal and the Commissioner and passed<br \/>\nthem off as if they were themselves the author&#8217;s.  We feel that<br \/>\nquoting from an order of some authority particularly a<br \/>\nspecialized one cannot per-se be faulted as this procedure can<br \/>\noften help in making for brevity and precision, but we agree<br \/>\nwith Mr. Vahanavati to the extent that any &#8216;borrowed words&#8217;<br \/>\nused in a judgment must be acknowledged as such in any<br \/>\nappropriate manner as a courtesy to the true author(s).  Be<br \/>\nthat as it may, we are of the opinion that the three questions<br \/>\nreproduced above can, in no way, be called substantial<br \/>\nquestions of law.  The fact as to the actual sale price of the<br \/>\nproperty, the implication of the contradictory statements<br \/>\nmade by Rajarathinam or whether reliance could be placed<br \/>\non the loose sheets recovered in the course of the raid are all<br \/>\nquestions of fact.   We therefore find no infirmity in the order<br \/>\nof the High Court.  Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007 Author: H S Bedi Bench: S.B.Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4262 of 2007 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax,Salem RESPONDENT: P.V.Kalyanasundaram DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/09\/2007 BENCH: S.B.SINHA &amp; HARJIT SINGH BEDI JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N [&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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-188903","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"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,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007 - 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-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007\" \/>\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,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007\" \/>\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=\"2007-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-25T07:18:46+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-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T07:18:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1285,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-09-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-25T07:18:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007\"}]},{\"@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,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007 - 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-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-25T07:18:46+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-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007","datePublished":"2007-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T07:18:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007"},"wordCount":1285,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-09-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-25T07:18:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-taxsalem-vs-p-v-kalyanasundaram-on-14-september-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax,Salem vs P.V.Kalyanasundaram on 14 September, 2007"}]},{"@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\/188903","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=188903"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/188903\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=188903"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=188903"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=188903"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}