{"id":195420,"date":"2000-02-15T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-02-14T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000"},"modified":"2015-10-22T11:01:04","modified_gmt":"2015-10-22T05:31:04","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading &#8230; on 15 February, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading &#8230; on 15 February, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S S Quadri<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.M.Quadri<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil) 2600-03  of  1994\nAppeal (civil)\t3788\t of  1999\n\n\n\nPETITIONER:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t15\/02\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nD.P.Wadhwa, S.S.M.Quadri\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>L&#8230;..I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>      J U DG M E N T<\/p>\n<p>      SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>      In  these\t five appeals the parties are  common;\t the<br \/>\nRevenue is the appellant and the assessee is the respondent.<br \/>\nC.A.Nos.2600-03\t of  1994,  which relate to  the  assessment<br \/>\nyears  1967-68 to 1970-71, arise from the judgment and order<br \/>\nof  the\t Division Bench of the High Court of  Judicature  at<br \/>\nBombay in Income-Tax Reference No.242 of 1976 dated December<br \/>\n12,  1988.   Following\tthat  judgment\tthe  Division  Bench<br \/>\ndisposed  of  Income  Tax  Reference  No.10  of\t 1987  which<br \/>\npertains  to  the assessment year 1974- 75 on July 30,\t1998<br \/>\nwhich  is  under challenge in Civil Appeal No.3788 of  1999.<br \/>\nThe  common  substantial  question of law, which  arises  in<br \/>\nthese  appeals,\t is  question  No.2  noted  below.   Briefly<br \/>\nstated,\t the  facts  giving  rise to these  appeals  are  as<br \/>\nfollows\t :   The respondent-assessee is an  Indian  resident<br \/>\ncompany.   It is carrying on the business of exporting\ttea.<br \/>\nIn  the aforementioned assessment years it claimed  weighted<br \/>\ndeduction  under  Section  35-B of the Income-tax  Act\t(for<br \/>\nshort\tthe  Act)  in  respect\t of  the  expenditure\tof<br \/>\nRs.1,95,935\/-  incurred on export of tea from East Africa to<br \/>\nthe  United  Kingdom.\tThe  claim  was\t disallowed  by\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax  Officer  on the ground that Section\t 35-B  would<br \/>\napply  only if the exports were made from India.  That\tview<br \/>\nwas  upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax  Appellate Tribunal.\t Among others, the following<br \/>\ntwo  questions\tin  Income  Tax Reference  No.242  1976\t and<br \/>\nquestion  No.2.\t in Income Tax Reference No.10 of 1987\twere<br \/>\nreferred  to  the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by\t the<br \/>\nIncome-tax  Appellate  Tribunal under Section 256(1) of\t the<br \/>\nAct :  (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of<br \/>\nthe  case,  the\t provisions of\tSection\t 40(c)(iii)\/40(a)(v)<br \/>\napplied\t in the case of the employees of the Assessee in its<br \/>\noverseas branches?\n<\/p>\n<p>      (2)  Whether on the facts and in the circumstances  of<br \/>\nthe  case,  the assessee is entitled to\t weighted  deduction<br \/>\nunder  Section\t35-B  in  respect   of\tthe  expenditure  of<br \/>\nRs.1,95,935\/-  incurred on export of tea from East Africa to<br \/>\nthe United Kingdom?\n<\/p>\n<p>      The  first question was answered in the negative i..e.<br \/>\nin  favour of the assessee and against the Revenue following<br \/>\nthe  judgment in the case of the respondent-assessee for the<br \/>\nearlier\t  assessment   years  in   <a href=\"\/doc\/491502\/\">Bombay   Burmah   Trading<br \/>\nCorporation  Ltd.   vs.\t Commissioner of Income Tax,  Bombay<br \/>\nCity-IV<\/a> [(1984) 145 ITR 793].  It is conceded by the learned<br \/>\ncounsel\t for  the  parties  that this  question\t is  covered<br \/>\nagainst\t the  Revenue  by  the judgment\t of  this  Court  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/115446\/\">Commissioner  of  Income Tax vs.   Continental\tConstruction<br \/>\nLtd.<\/a>   [(1998)\t230  ITR  485]\taffirming  the\tjudgment  in<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/416340\/\">Continental  Construction Ltd.\tvs.  Commissioner of  Income<br \/>\nTax<\/a> [(1990) 185 ITR 178].  Adverting to the second question,<br \/>\nthe  High  Court  answered it in the  affirmative  i.e.\t  in<br \/>\nfavour\tof the assessee and against the Revenue.  It will be<br \/>\napt  to\t refer\tto  Section 35-B of the Act,  which  is\t the<br \/>\nsubject-matter of debate in all the five appeals.\n<\/p>\n<p>      35-B.   Export  Markets\tdevelopments  allowance\t &#8212;<br \/>\n(1)(a).\t  Where\t an assessee, being a domestic company or  a<br \/>\nperson\t(other than a company) who is resident in India, has<br \/>\nincurred  after\t the 29th day of February, 1968, but  before<br \/>\nthe  1st  day  of  March,   1983,  whether  directly  or  in<br \/>\nassociation  with  any\tother person, any  expenditure\t(not<br \/>\nbeing  in  the\tnature of capital  expenditure\tor  personal<br \/>\nexpenses  of  the  assessee) referred to in clause  (b),  he<br \/>\nshall, subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed<br \/>\na  deduction  of a sum equal to one and one-third times\t the<br \/>\namount\tof  such  expenditure incurred during  the  previous<br \/>\nyear;\n<\/p>\n<p>      (b)  The expenditure referred to in clause (a) is that<br \/>\nincurred wholly and exclusively on<\/p>\n<p>      (i)  advertisement  or  publicity\t  outside  India  in<br \/>\nrespect\t of  the  goods, services or  facilities  which\t the<br \/>\nassessee  deals\t in  or\t provides  in  the  course  of\t his<br \/>\nbusiness..;\n<\/p>\n<p>      *** *** ***<\/p>\n<p>      (viii)  performance  of  services\t  outside  India  in<br \/>\nconnection  with,  or  incidental to, the execution  of\t any<br \/>\ncontract  for  the  supply  outside  India  of\tsuch  goods,<br \/>\nservices or facilities.\n<\/p>\n<p>      On  a  plain reading of the provision  of\t sub-section<br \/>\n(1),  extracted above, it is clear that to claim the benefit<br \/>\nof  this  section  the\tfollowing   conditions\thave  to  be<br \/>\nsatisfied  :   (i) the assessee must be a  domestic  company<br \/>\nwhich  is  resident  in India;\t(ii) it must  have  incurred<br \/>\nexpenditure  after  February  29, 1968 but before  March  1,<br \/>\n1983;  (iii) such expenditure should not be in the nature of<br \/>\ncapital\t expenditure  or personal expenses of the  assessee;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv)  the  expenditure\tmight\thave  been  incurred  either<br \/>\ndirectly  or in association with any other person;  and\t (v)<br \/>\nthe  nature  of the expenditure must answer the\t description<br \/>\nreferred to in any one of the sub-clauses of clause (b).  On<br \/>\nthese  requirements  being  satisfied  the  assessee-company<br \/>\nbecomes\t entitled  to the weighted deduction  under  Section<br \/>\n35-B.\tIt  is\tnot  necessary that  the  export  should  be<br \/>\ndirectly  ex-India (from India).  The Tribunals reading\t of<br \/>\nthe  section  that  the\t export should be  ex-India  is\t not<br \/>\nsupported by the language of the provision or any authority.<br \/>\nThe  High  Court has, therefore, rightly concluded  that  to<br \/>\navail  the benefit of weighted deduction the provision\tdoes<br \/>\nnot  require that the export should be ex-India.  It must be<br \/>\nobserved in fairness to Mr.M.L.Verma, learned senior counsel<br \/>\nappearing  for\tthe  Revenue,  that he\tdoes  not  seriously<br \/>\ndispute\t this proposition.  Once this position is  accepted,<br \/>\nthe  order  under challenge has to be  sustained.   However,<br \/>\nwhat  Mr.Verma\tcontends is that the respondent\t claims\t the<br \/>\nexpenditure  under  sub-clause (viii) for which there is  no<br \/>\nfactual\t finding  by the Tribunal.  The High Court,  submits<br \/>\nMr.   Verma, has gone wrong in recording a fresh finding  &#8212;<br \/>\nthe expenditure was incurred with regard to the performance<br \/>\nof  the\t service  outside India i.e.  from  East  Africa  to<br \/>\nUnited\tKingdom in connection with the execution of contract<br \/>\nfor  supply  of\t tea in the United Kingdom &#8212; and  on  that<br \/>\nbasis  upholding  the claim of the respondent under  Section<br \/>\n35-B;\this further submission is neither the High Court nor<br \/>\nthis  Court  can do so without calling for  a  supplementary<br \/>\nstatement  from\t the  Tribunal on this aspect of  the  fact.<br \/>\nMr.Ranjit   Kumar,  learned  counsel   appearing   for\t the<br \/>\nrespondent-  assessee company, invited our attention to\t the<br \/>\norders\tpassed\tby the Income-Tax Officer, the\tCommissioner<br \/>\nand  the  Tribunal and contended that there was\t no  dispute<br \/>\nwith  regard to the nature of the expenditure and  therefore<br \/>\nMr.Vermas  contention has to be rejected.  We have  perused<br \/>\nthe  orders of the Income Tax Officer, the Commissioner, the<br \/>\nAppellate  Assistant  Commissioner and the Tribunal as\talso<br \/>\nthe  order under appeal passed by the High Court.  Though  a<br \/>\ncopy  of  the return containing details of  the\t expenditure<br \/>\nclaimed\t by the respondent under the above provision has not<br \/>\nbeen  placed  on  record,  the orders  of  the\tdepartmental<br \/>\nauthorities as well as of the Tribunal and of the High Court<br \/>\nleave  us  in  no doubt that the  weighted  deduction  under<br \/>\nSection\t 35-B  was  claimed in respect\tof  the\t expenditure<br \/>\nincurred  with\tregard\tto the performance of  the  services<br \/>\noutside\t India\ti.e.  in East Africa and United\t Kingdom  in<br \/>\nconnection with the execution of the contract for the supply<br \/>\nof  tea\t in  the United Kingdom.  Indeed, the said  fact  is<br \/>\nembodied  in question No.2 itself.  In view of the position,<br \/>\npointed out above, we find no illegality in the orders under<br \/>\nchallenge  in  these appeals.  The appeals  are\t accordingly<br \/>\ndismissed with costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading &#8230; on 15 February, 2000 Author: S S Quadri Bench: D.P.Wadhwa, S.S.M.Quadri CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2600-03 of 1994 Appeal (civil) 3788 of 1999 PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. RESPONDENT: BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15\/02\/2000 BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, [&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-195420","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>The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading ... on 15 February, 2000 - 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000\" \/>\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 Bombay Burmah Trading ... on 15 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-22T05:31:04+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=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading &#8230; on 15 February, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-22T05:31:04+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1260,\"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\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading ... on 15 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-02-14T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-22T05:31:04+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#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 Bombay Burmah Trading &#8230; on 15 February, 2000\"}]},{\"@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 Bombay Burmah Trading ... on 15 February, 2000 - 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading ... on 15 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-22T05:31:04+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":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading &#8230; on 15 February, 2000","datePublished":"2000-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-22T05:31:04+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000"},"wordCount":1260,"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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Bombay Burmah Trading ... on 15 February, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-02-14T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-22T05:31:04+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-bombay-burmah-trading-on-15-february-2000#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 Bombay Burmah Trading &#8230; on 15 February, 2000"}]},{"@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\/195420","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=195420"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195420\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195420"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195420"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195420"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}