{"id":189811,"date":"2008-12-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008"},"modified":"2019-03-15T07:47:50","modified_gmt":"2019-03-15T02:17:50","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed<\/div>\n
           THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                                 Judgment delivered on: 12.12.2008\n\n+            ITA 1348\/2008\n\n\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                 ...   Appellant\n\n\n                                 - versus -\n\n\nSMT. RANI SHANKAR MISHRA                                   ... Respondent<\/pre>\n
                                   WITH<\/p>\n
+            ITA 1386\/2008<\/p>\n
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                                 …   Appellant<\/p>\n
                                 – versus –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
SMT. RANI SHANKAR MISHRA                                   ... Respondent\n\nAdvocates who appeared in this case:\nFor the Appellant     : Mr J.R. Goel\nFor the Respondent    : Mr Uday Shankar Mishra alongwith\n                        the respondent (in person)\n\n\nCORAM:-\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED\nHON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER\n\n<\/pre>\n
     1.    Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
\n           see the judgment ?                                  YES<\/p>\n
     2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                  YES<\/p>\n
     3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? YES<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1348\/08 & 1386\/2008                                        Page No.1 of 7<\/span>
\n BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)<\/p>\n
1.           The revenue is in appeal being aggrieved by the common<\/p>\n
order dated 09.05.2008 passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in<\/p>\n
relation to the assessment years 2003-04 and 2004-05. The Assessing<\/p>\n
Officer had made an addition in respect of the amount of compensation<\/p>\n
and interest received by the assessee from the Government of the<\/p>\n
United States of America.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.           In January, 1982, the assessee had applied for a job in the<\/p>\n
Voice of America which was a state owned broadcasting agency. In<\/p>\n
1984, the assessee was informed that she had cleared the competitive<\/p>\n
test. But, she was never offered the job. It is relevant to note that in<\/p>\n
1977, a class action suit had been filed before the United States District<\/p>\n
Court for the District of Columbia, United States entitled Carolee<\/p>\n
Brady Heartman, et al. v. Madeleine K. Albright, Secretary of State<\/p>\n
and Marc B. Nathanson, Chairman, Broadcasting Board of<\/p>\n
Governors: Civil Action No.77-2019 JR. The said class action had<\/p>\n
been brought on behalf of the women who had been denied<\/p>\n
employment in certain professions and technical positions in the former<\/p>\n
United States Information Agency (USIA). The allegation was that the<\/p>\n
women had been denied entry into certain positions because of their<\/p>\n
sex, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 of USA.<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1348\/08 & 1386\/2008                                    Page No.2 of 7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 3.           The matter had travelled right upto the United States<\/p>\n
Supreme Court and, thereafter, the claim forms filed by over 1100<\/p>\n
women were being analysed. One claim form was also submitted by<\/p>\n
the assessee in 1989. In the course of hearing of individual claims,<\/p>\n
hearing in respect of 48 such class members had been concluded and 46<\/p>\n
out of them had won in whole or in part. Based on this information and<\/p>\n
the knowledge acquired during the hearings, a proposal was made by<\/p>\n
the Government of United States to settle the entire class action for<\/p>\n
US$ 508 million. The said settlement offer was accepted and a consent<\/p>\n
decree, which was approved by the United States District Court for the<\/p>\n
District of Columbia on 22.03.2000, was drawn up. As per the consent<\/p>\n
decree, each of the members of the class other than those whose cases<\/p>\n
had been individually settled by then, were entitled to the said sum of<\/p>\n
US$ 508 million in full and final settlement of all claims for the relief,<\/p>\n
including without limitation, all claims for back pay, instatement, front<\/p>\n
pay, retirement and other employee benefits and pre-judgment interest.<\/p>\n
Post-judgment interest was also decreed from the date on which the<\/p>\n
consent decree was approved by the court upto the date of payment.<\/p>\n
Consequently, the assessee received her share out of US$ 508 million<\/p>\n
which was given to the entire class of 1100 claimants (except those<\/p>\n
claimants whose cases had been individually decided by then).<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1348\/08 & 1386\/2008                                    Page No.3 of 7<\/span>\n<\/p>\n
 4.           The question that has arisen in the present case is whether<\/p>\n
the said amount received by the assessee in the two assessment years in<\/p>\n
question would be covered within the expression “profits in lieu of<\/p>\n
salary” as appearing in Section 17(3)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.<\/p>\n
The Commissioner of Income-tax had categorically found as a fact that<\/p>\n
there was no employer-employee relationship between the assessee and<\/p>\n
the Voice of America or the United States Government. Consequently,<\/p>\n
the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) concluded that the said<\/p>\n
amount received by the assessee cannot fall within the concept of<\/p>\n
“salary”. The tribunal also noted the factual position that the assessee<\/p>\n
was, in fact, never offered the job. Consequently, the only conclusion<\/p>\n
that could be arrived at with regard to the nature of the amount received<\/p>\n
by the assessee was that it was not offered as a part of or arising out of<\/p>\n
the employment of the assessee. The amount was received by the<\/p>\n
assessee by way of compensation for not having been offered the job<\/p>\n
with the Voice of America. The allegation was, as noted above, that<\/p>\n
she alongwith about 1100 other women had been discriminated against<\/p>\n
on the ground of sex and had not been offered jobs by the Government<\/p>\n
agency.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.           Section 17(3)(iii) reads as under:-\n<\/p>\n
         “17. “Salary”, “perquisite” and “profits in lieu of
\n              salary” defined. –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               xxxx xxxx xxxx          xxxx     xxxx\n\nITA Nos.1348\/08 & 1386\/2008                                    Page No.4 of 7<\/span>\n                  (3) \"Profits in lieu of salary\" includes -\n\n                       (i) xxxx      xxxx       xxxx     xxxx xxxx;\n                       (ii) xxxx xxxx           xxxx     xxxx xxxx;\n<\/pre>\n
                       (iii) any amount due to or received, whether in
\n                             lump sum or otherwise, by any assessee
\n                             from any person –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                             (A) Before his joining any employment
\n                                 with that person; or
\n                             (B) After cessation of his employment
\n                                 with that person.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The expression “profits in lieu of salary” bears reference to the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section 17 (1) which defines salary for the purposes of<\/p>\n
Sections 15, 16 and 17. Salary, inter alia, includes profits in lieu of<\/p>\n
salary as per Section 17(1)(iv) of the said Act. It is in this context that<\/p>\n
the expression “profits in lieu of salary” has been defined in Section<\/p>\n
17(3) of the said Act. The case of the revenue is that the amounts<\/p>\n
received by the assessee fall under Section 17 (3)(iii) of the said Act.<\/p>\n
We have already extracted the relevant portion of Section 17(3)(iii)<\/p>\n
above. A plain reading thereof would indicate that the amount due or<\/p>\n
received whether in lump sum or otherwise by an assessee from any<\/p>\n
person must be in connection with the employment with that person.<\/p>\n
Sub-clause (A) refers to the period prior to an assessee joining such<\/p>\n
employment and sub-clause (B) refers to the period after cessation of<\/p>\n
an assessee\u201fs employment with another person. We have already noted<\/p>\n
above that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) clearly found as<\/p>\n
a fact that there was no employer-employee relationship. The Income-<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1348\/08 & 1386\/2008                                       Page No.5 of 7<\/span>
\n tax Appellate Tribunal has also observed that the assessee was never<\/p>\n
offered any job. We have also examined the consent decree and the<\/p>\n
background to the settlement which was offered to all the members of<\/p>\n
the class action. It is clear that the class action itself was based on the<\/p>\n
ground that the members of the class had been denied entry into certain<\/p>\n
positions because of their gender. The very basis of the class action is<\/p>\n
that they had not been given the job for which they had applied on the<\/p>\n
ground of discrimination based on their sex. This clearly implies that<\/p>\n
none of the class members, including the assessee, had ever been<\/p>\n
offered a job by the Voice of America or by any other governmental<\/p>\n
agency of the USA. In fact, the very concept of a salary is that it is<\/p>\n
regarded as a reward or recompense for the services performed. The<\/p>\n
assessee never performed any service as she was never given the job.<\/p>\n
Thus, the revenue\u201fs contention that the said amounts received by the<\/p>\n
assessee were in the nature of \u201eprofits in lieu of salary\u201f, cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.           Both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as<\/p>\n
the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal have also concluded that the said<\/p>\n
amounts received by the assessee were in the nature of capital receipts.<\/p>\n
We agree with that conclusion because the amount was received by<\/p>\n
way of compensation for not being offered the job on the basis of<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1348\/08 & 1386\/2008                                     Page No.6 of 7<\/span>
\n gender discrimination. The decision of the tribunal, therefore, does not<\/p>\n
call for any interference.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
7.           No substantial question of law arises for our consideration.<\/p>\n
             The appeals are dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                    BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J<\/p>\n
                                          RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
\nDecember 12, 2008
\ndutt<\/p>\n
ITA Nos.1348\/08 & 1386\/2008                                      Page No.7 of 7<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008 Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 12.12.2008 + ITA 1348\/2008 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX … Appellant – versus – SMT. RANI SHANKAR MISHRA … Respondent WITH + ITA 1386\/2008 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-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=\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-15T02:17:50+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-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T02:17:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1283,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-15T02:17:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 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":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-15T02:17:50+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-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T02:17:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008"},"wordCount":1283,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-15T02:17:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-smt-rani-shankar-mishra-on-12-december-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Smt. Rani Shankar Mishra on 12 December, 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\/189811","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=189811"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189811\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189811"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189811"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189811"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}