{"id":222329,"date":"2010-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010"},"modified":"2019-04-04T13:44:41","modified_gmt":"2019-04-04T08:14:41","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar<\/div>\n
                                             1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                                       O. O. C. J.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                   INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2285 OF 2009\n\n    The Commissioner of Income Tax - 21\n    Mumbai                                             ..Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n               Vs.\n    Anuj A. Sheth HUF, Mumbai                          ..Respondent.\n                                      ....\n    Mr. N.A. Kazi for the Appellant.\n\n\n\n\n                                                 \n    Mr. P.J. Pardiwala, Senior Advocate  with Dr. K. Shivram  with Mr. \n    A.R. Singh and Mr. P.S. Savla for the Respondent.\n                                 ig   ....\n\n                           CORAM : DR. D.Y.CHANDRACHUD  &\n                               \n                                           J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                             7th April, 2010.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT (Per DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.):\n<\/p>\n
    1.        Admit.     The   following   question   of   law   will   arise   in   the <\/p>\n
    appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260-A of the Income Tax <\/p>\n
    Act, 1961 :\n<\/p>\n
              “Whether the assessee’s claim of computation of long term
\n              capital   gains   on   the   sale   of   shares,   other   than   the   bonus <\/p>\n
              shares  of Infosys Technologies,  after giving the benefit of
\n              indexation   is   in   consonance   with   the   proviso   to   Section
\n              112(1) and the other provisions of the Act?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    2.        The question of law has been reframed during the course of <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
    the   hearing   of   the   appeal   since   the   question   as   formulated   by   the <\/p>\n
    Revenue was lacking in clarity.\n<\/p>\n
    3.          The appeal arises out of an order passed by the Income Tax <\/p>\n
    Appellate Tribunal on 5th  September, 2008.   The Assessment Year is <\/p>\n
    2001-02.     In   the   present   case   the   assessee   entered   into   eight   sale <\/p>\n
    transactions   involving   the   shares   of   four   companies.       Of   the   sale <\/p>\n
    transactions, the  shares of Infosys Technologies comprised entirely of <\/p>\n
    bonus shares where the cost of acquisition was nil.  The bonus shares <\/p>\n
    of   Infosys   Technologies   were   sold   for   a   consideration   of   Rs.6.13 <\/p>\n
    Crores.       There   being   no  cost   of   acquisition,   the   long   term   capital <\/p>\n
    gains were computed at Rs.6.13 Crores.  Out of the remaining seven <\/p>\n
    transactions one sale resulted in a long term capital gain of Rs.9.47 <\/p>\n
    lacs   with   indexation   whereas   in   the   remaining   transactions   the <\/p>\n
    assessee   reported   a   loss   of   Rs.2.78   Crores   with   indexation.     The <\/p>\n
    assessee set off the long term capital loss of Rs.2.68 Crores from the <\/p>\n
    long term capital gains of Rs.6.13 Crores and paid a tax of 10% on the <\/p>\n
    net long term capital gain of Rs.3.45 Crores.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
    4.          The Assessing Officer adopted the sale price realized from <\/p>\n
    the shares sold by the assessee of Rs.7.51 Crores and after deducting <\/p>\n
    the cost of acquisition of shares of Rs.3.16 Crores, assessed the long <\/p>\n
    term   capital   gains   without   indexation   at   Rs.4.34   Crores.     In   other <\/p>\n
    words, what the Assessing Officer did in effect was to deny the benefit <\/p>\n
    of   indexation   to   the   assessee   while   giving   effect   to   the   proviso   to <\/p>\n
    Section   112(1).     The   appeal   against   the   Assessment   Order   on   this <\/p>\n
    issue failed before the  CIT(A).  The Tribunal came to the conclusion <\/p>\n
    that shares transferred on every occasion constitute a separate capital <\/p>\n
    asset as provided in Section 48.   Moreover,   the Tribunal held that <\/p>\n
    merely because the assessee had not claimed indexation on the sale of <\/p>\n
    its   bonus   shares   of   Infosys   Technologies,   the   Revenue   was   not <\/p>\n
    justified in denying the benefit of indexation on the sale of shares of <\/p>\n
    other companies to the assessee.  The conclusion of the Tribunal was <\/p>\n
    that the assessee’s claim of computation of long term capital gains on <\/p>\n
    the   sale   of   shares,   other   than   the   bonus   shares   of   Infosys <\/p>\n
    Technologies, after giving the benefit of indexation was in consonance <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                               4<\/span><\/p>\n
    with the proviso to Section 112(1) and the other provisions of the Act <\/p>\n
    and   that   accordingly   the   assessee   was   assessable   to   net   long   term <\/p>\n
    capital gains computed at Rs.3.45 Crores as returned.     The appeal <\/p>\n
    filed by the assessee on the aforesaid ground was allowed.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Counsel   appearing   on  behalf  of  the  Revenue  has  assailed <\/p>\n
    the finding of the Tribunal by submitting that the Assessing Officer <\/p>\n
    was justified in denying to the assessee the benefit of indexation and <\/p>\n
    in computing the long term capital gain by deducting from the total <\/p>\n
    sale price of the listed securities (Rs.7.51 Crores) the absolute cost of <\/p>\n
    acquisition (Rs.3.16 Crores) thereby resulting in a net gain of Rs.4.34 <\/p>\n
    Crores.\n<\/p>\n
    6.          Section 45(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates that <\/p>\n
    any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a capital asset effected <\/p>\n
    in the previous year shall, save as provided in certain specific sections <\/p>\n
    referred   to   therein,   be   chargeable   to   income   tax   under   the   head <\/p>\n
    ‘capital gains’, and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                5<\/span><\/p>\n
    year in which the transfer took place.  For the purpose of sub section <\/p>\n
    (1) of Section 45 the capital gains on the transfer of each capital asset <\/p>\n
    have   to   be   computed   separately.     Section   48   provides   for   the <\/p>\n
    computation   of   income   chargeable   under   the   head   ‘capital   gains’.\n<\/p>\n
    The marginal note to Section  48 is entitled ‘mode  of computation’.\n<\/p>\n
    Section 48 stipulates that income chargeable under the head ‘capital <\/p>\n
    gains’   shall   be   computed   by   deducting     from   the   full   value   of   the <\/p>\n
    consideration received or accruing   as a result of the transfer of the <\/p>\n
    capital   asset   the   following   amounts,   viz.   (i)   Expenditure   incurred <\/p>\n
    wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer; and (ii) The <\/p>\n
    cost   of   acquisition   of   the   asset   and   the   cost   of   any   improvement <\/p>\n
    thereto.     The   second   proviso   is  to   the   effect   that   where   long   term <\/p>\n
    capital gains arise from the transfer of a long term capital asset (other <\/p>\n
    than capital gain arising  to a non resident from the transfer of shares <\/p>\n
    or   debentures   of   an   Indian   company)   the   provisions   of   Clause   (ii) <\/p>\n
    shall have effect as if for the words “cost of acquisition” and “cost of <\/p>\n
    any   improvement”,   the   words   “indexed   cost   of   acquisition”   and <\/p>\n
    “indexed   cost   of   any   improvement”   have   respectively   been <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                          6<\/span><\/p>\n
    substituted.      The indexed cost  of acquisition  is computed so as to <\/p>\n
    bring the actual cost of acquisition in line with the cost of inflation <\/p>\n
    index.    Section  70 provides for  the set off of loss  from  one source <\/p>\n
    against income from another source under the same head of income.\n<\/p>\n
    Prior to its substitution with effect from 1st April, 2003 by the Finance <\/p>\n
    Act of 2002, Section 70 provided that save as otherwise provided in <\/p>\n
    the   Act, where the net result for any Assessment Year in respect of <\/p>\n
    any source falling under any head of income is a loss, the assessee <\/p>\n
    shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his <\/p>\n
    income from any other source under the same head.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        In   consonance   with   the   provisions   of   Section   70,   the <\/p>\n
    assessee in the present case was entitled to set off the loss sustained <\/p>\n
    on the sale of shares which constitute a long term capital asset against <\/p>\n
    the capital gains which were realized from the sale inter alia of the <\/p>\n
    bonus shares of Infosys Technologies.   The net capital gain reported <\/p>\n
    by the assessee after carrying out that exercise was Rs.3.45 Crores.\n<\/p>\n
                                                         ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                               7<\/span><\/p>\n
    8.          Section 112 of the Act provides that where the total income <\/p>\n
    of an assessee includes any income, arising from the transfer of a long <\/p>\n
    term   capital   asset,   which   is   chargeable   under   the   head   of   ‘capital <\/p>\n
    gains’, the tax payable by the assessee on the total income shall in the <\/p>\n
    case of an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, being a resident, <\/p>\n
    be the aggregate of (i) the amount of income tax payable on the total <\/p>\n
    income as reduced by the amount of such long term capital gains, had <\/p>\n
    the  total income  as  so  reduced  been  his  total  income;   and (ii)  the <\/p>\n
    amount of income tax calculated on such long term capital gains at <\/p>\n
    the rate of 20%.  The proviso to Section 112 states that “where the tax <\/p>\n
    payable in respect of any income arising from the transfer of a long <\/p>\n
    term capital asset, being listed securities or unit or zero  coupon  bond <\/p>\n
    exceeds 10% of the amount of capital gains before giving effect to the <\/p>\n
    provisions of the second proviso to Section 48, then such excess shall <\/p>\n
    be   ignored   for   the   purpose   of   computing   the   tax   payable   by   the <\/p>\n
    assessee.   Section 112 forms a part of Chapter 12 of the Act which <\/p>\n
    deals with the determination of  tax in certain special cases.  Section <\/p>\n
    112 provides for a tax on long term capital gains.  Ordinarily, under <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
    clause (a) of sub section (1) of Section 112 the income tax calculated <\/p>\n
    on long term capital gains is 20%.\n<\/p>\n
    9.           The   opening   words   of   sub   section   (1)   of   Section   112 <\/p>\n
    contemplate   a   situation   where   “the   total   income   of   an   assessee <\/p>\n
    includes any income arising from the transfer of a long term capital <\/p>\n
    asset”. This would be indicative of the fact that in computing  income <\/p>\n
    for the purposes of capital gains, the assessee would be entitled to the <\/p>\n
    benefit of the normal provisions of the Act inter alia in regard to a set <\/p>\n
    off under Section 70.  The effect of the proviso to Section 112 is that <\/p>\n
    in the event that the tax which is payable in respect of income arising <\/p>\n
    from   the   transfer   of   a   listed   security,   which   is   a   long   term   capital <\/p>\n
    asset, exceeds 10% of the amount of capital gains before giving effect <\/p>\n
    to indexation as provided in the second proviso to Section 48, the tax <\/p>\n
    would be liable to be capped at 10% , by ignoring the excess beyond <\/p>\n
    10%.\n<\/p>\n
    10.          The   view   point   of   the   assessee   was   that   every   transfer <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                               9<\/span><\/p>\n
    constituted a separate transfer of a   capital asset on which   capital <\/p>\n
    gains would be required to be computed separately.   The shares of <\/p>\n
    Infosys   Technologies   were   sold   for   Rs.6.13   Crores   by   the   assessee.\n<\/p>\n
    These were bonus shares on which there was no cost of acquisition.\n<\/p>\n
    11.         The   assessee   was   entitled   to   indexation   by   virtue   of   the <\/p>\n
    second proviso to Section 48.  Moreover, in view of the provisions of <\/p>\n
    Section 70 the assessee was entitled to set off the loss sustained in <\/p>\n
    respect of one source falling under the same head of income from its <\/p>\n
    income against any other source under the same head.  In the present <\/p>\n
    case, as a matter of fact, the question of indexation in relation to the <\/p>\n
    shares   of   Infosys   Technologies   would   not   arise   since   the   cost   of <\/p>\n
    acquisition of the shares, being bonus shares was nil. Where the cost <\/p>\n
    of acquisition is nil, the indexed cost would necessarily be nil. While <\/p>\n
    computing the loss sustained in respect of the six transactions and the <\/p>\n
    profit sustained in one of the other transactions the assessee sought <\/p>\n
    indexation.   For the purposes of working out the application of the <\/p>\n
    proviso to Section 112, there is nothing in the section which would <\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                             10<\/span><\/p>\n
    deprive the assessee of the indexation claimed on the sale of shares <\/p>\n
    where there was a resultant loss.   What the proviso to Section 112 <\/p>\n
    essentially requires is that where the tax payable in respect of  income <\/p>\n
    arising from a listed security, being a long term capital asset, exceeds <\/p>\n
    10% of the capital gains before indexation, then such excess beyond <\/p>\n
    10% is liable to be ignored.  The assessee reported a net capital gain <\/p>\n
    of   Rs.3.45   Crores   which   was   computed   after   setting   off   the   loss <\/p>\n
    sustained in the sale of shares in certain transactions relating to the <\/p>\n
    sale of listed securities against capital gains arising inter alia out of <\/p>\n
    the sale of the bonus shares of Infosys Technologies.  The proviso to <\/p>\n
    Section   112   requires   a   comparison   to   be     made   on   the   one   hand <\/p>\n
    between the tax payable in respect of income arising from the transfer <\/p>\n
    of  listed securities, computed at 20% with the tax payable at the rate <\/p>\n
    of 10% on the capital gains before giving effect to indexation.  We are <\/p>\n
    not dealing in the present case with a situation where the assessee <\/p>\n
    had acquired at a cost,  shares on the sale of which a capital gain had <\/p>\n
    arisen.  Were the assessee to acquire those shares on which a capital <\/p>\n
    gain was to arise, at a cost, then it would have been necessary for the <\/p>\n
                                                              ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                11<\/span><\/p>\n
    purposes   of   the   proviso   to   Section   112(1)     to   compute   the   capital <\/p>\n
    gains before giving effect to indexation under the second proviso to <\/p>\n
    Section 48.   That, however, would not arise in the facts of this case <\/p>\n
    inasmuch as   the bonus shares of Infosys Technologies on which the <\/p>\n
    assessee realized a capital gain of Rs.6.13 Crores were acquired at  no <\/p>\n
    cost.  There is nothing in the provisions of Section 112 which would <\/p>\n
    lead   to   the     acceptance   of   the   contention   of   the   Revenue   that   the <\/p>\n
    assessee would be entitled to a set off of the loss under Section 70, <\/p>\n
    but   without   the   benefit   of   indexation.       No   such   requirement   is <\/p>\n
    legislated upon by   Parliament either under Section 70 or in Section <\/p>\n
    112.  <\/p>\n
    12.          The fact that an assessee is entitled to a set off of the loss <\/p>\n
    sustained on the sale of certain shares is clarified in a circular issued <\/p>\n
    by   the   Central   Board   of   Direct   Taxes   on   13 th  September,   1995 <\/p>\n
    (Circular   721).     The   circular   notes   that   Section   112   includes   two <\/p>\n
    significant expressions viz. “total income” and “includes any income”.\n<\/p>\n
    The   circular   states   that   the   total   income   is   to   be   computed   in   the <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
    manner prescribed by the Act and the set off of a loss, in accordance <\/p>\n
    with the provisions of Sections 70 to 80, is a stage which is part of this <\/p>\n
    procedure.     The   circular   then   states   that   when   this   procedure   is <\/p>\n
    adopted for computing the gross total income or total income,   only <\/p>\n
    the amount of income after set off remains under the head as part of <\/p>\n
    the   gross   total   income   or   total   income.     Consequently,   only   that <\/p>\n
    amount   of   long   term   capital   gains   which   is   included   in   the   total <\/p>\n
    income would be subject to tax at a prescribed flat rate.  A subsequent <\/p>\n
    circular   of   the   CBDT   dated   14th  September,   1999   (Circular   779) <\/p>\n
    clarifies   that   “the   benefit   of   cost   inflation   index   shall   continue   as <\/p>\n
    before   but   where   the   tax   on   long   term   capital   gains     without <\/p>\n
    adjustment   of   cost   inflation   exceeds   10%,   such   excess   shall   be <\/p>\n
    ignored”.\n<\/p>\n
    13.         Both these circulars are of significance because they clearly <\/p>\n
    reflect the Revenue’s understanding that (i) The benefit of a set off <\/p>\n
    would   be   available   while   computing     the   income   arising   from   the <\/p>\n
    transfer of a long term capital asset, which is part of the total income <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 13<\/span><\/p>\n
    of   an   assessee;   and   (ii)   The   benefit   of   the   cost   inflation   index   or <\/p>\n
    indexation   would   continue   to   be   available   subject   to   the   condition <\/p>\n
    that where the tax on long term capital gains without adjustment for <\/p>\n
    indexation exceeds 10%, such excess shall be ignored.\n<\/p>\n
    14.          In the circumstances, we are of the view, on the balance, <\/p>\n
    that the Tribunal was justified in coming to the conclusion that the <\/p>\n
    assessee’s claim of computation of long term capital gains on the sale <\/p>\n
    of shares other than the bonus shares of Infosys Technologies, after <\/p>\n
    giving the benefit of indexation was in consonance with the proviso to <\/p>\n
    Section 112(1) and that the assessee was assessable to net long term <\/p>\n
    capital gain of Rs.3.45 Crores.  In this view of the matter, the question <\/p>\n
    of law as framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the <\/p>\n
    assessee.       The   appeal   shall   accordingly   stand   dismissed.     In   the <\/p>\n
    circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                  (Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                      (J.P. Devadhar, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:48:51 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.P. Devadhar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.2285 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Income Tax – 21 Mumbai ..Appellant. Vs. Anuj […]<\/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":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-222329","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\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 - 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-04T08:14:41+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=\"12 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-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T08:14:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2415,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-04T08:14:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 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":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-04T08:14:41+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":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010","datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T08:14:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010"},"wordCount":2415,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax - 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-04T08:14:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-2-vs-anuj-a-sheth-huf-on-7-april-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax – 2 vs Anuj A. Sheth Huf on 7 April, 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\/222329","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=222329"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/222329\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=222329"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=222329"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=222329"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}