{"id":232840,"date":"2008-04-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-08-05T22:11:44","modified_gmt":"2018-08-05T16:41:44","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: Deepak Verma Byrareddy<\/div>\n
bd\n\n  gs :\n\nDATED THIS THE 11*\" DAY..QF APR1%L%2a%o3Li  i V  % *4\n\nPRESENT; T X T\n\n \n\n H0..r\u00b0BLE   \nmjj; L.\n\nor,-p g-._....\n\n11\u00bb\n\nn5I(':VF;:i1N;.,a; '. ' V\n\nTHE H_I~i\"'BL_L.  A1x!A15:DBYRAREDDY%% \"   T \nA I.T.A,..N q...124QOG3VC:'iy:v--. A ' T\n\n ' 1'  L: if\n _. 1 'n._ n a I _ \\\nJ6\": :_ts_deb'.urs_ tagvzgrae. Ha I1-..%_.,:l:ty '.9 pay Interest tax lemme pa. .\n\nof the chalgeableViVntefeell'within the meaning u1'Seetion 2 (5) read;\n\n   5 ti'1'e\"Aet. This was challenged by the asses:-zee\n\n   \"Commissioner - Income tax, unsuccessfully. On a\n\n1.... \"f'_iL..... I\nI\n\nl'u1~\"-i.__herV_ vappeel by the  be\ufb01ire the ribuiial, 'um 1: until\n\nA    in favour of the assessee. It is this which is under\n\nll 'plrallenge in the connected appeal no. ITA 124\/2003.\n\nThe questions of law that are raised in these appeals are:'\n\n  3\n\n\n\n\"{i} '. -=* er the rim\" is en es. in law in. _!1\";1;i.=i,.e\"-\nthat the order passed under Section 3(2) of the.V;\u00e9te=t  i\nAssessing O\ufb02ficer is not prejudieie-i to the iri-tereitt   A\nrevenue and is not erroneous, arid .. :tl1eief'ore:\"' tire \nCommissioner has no jurisdiction ut1lr'i*e;;i'w,x:ctiontVi?9  tiie  .\nA--tt- 'lTi\ufb02g tire - .  it ' \"   i\n(ii) Whether the  law inilllolicling\nthat interest 'of Ra. 2,(i9,i4Q,'0ii  the debtors\n\nI I ......_._\n\nn\nV\n'3:\n\nis not eilargeujre io  ' ii'? ;.:e'*_uri.26\u00a7C\"  tire Ii'z'\"r'st\n'i'a.-.A.\u00ab:-t'??**V l A i H A \n5;' o:1lBehuill' of the Revenue that the\n\n 1: in '   >--.,:iii*s-\"ii\" Ii.' . . .. 1... :_____.1_:___. c1__._.:_.__ rush\n\ufb02SS{\u00a7SS6t.iIll:l\u00a3.l UI.)l~l\u00a2.'r'l-.\"r'i.\u00a23.(1Viit'}-(..'_|lt3.,(')l\"Vi-'Ell lI1|.6l'GSl. Dy lIlVU1&1ilg DUUIIDII 4-01.:\n\nof  Aetl'  aiiditional urnount can only be treated as\n\n  GllVii.'i\u00a7e\u00a3z.i3leinterest\u00a7i \"\"\"  is contended that Section 26C was.\n\nto';t'eeiiiteieeeredit institutions to vary the terms of agreements, in.\n\n  respeet'ofterin loan transactions entered into before 1.10.1991, so\n\n increase the rate of interest stipulated therein to the extent to\n\n\n\n....n\n\n under the .-$.21. The said ....-.:|.'-.n s:-a..not _-  in.to..:siinfv1t:o\n\nin respect of transactions entered into oftgsr  \u00bb  i\n\n6. Thcre is no provision undisr this 'wihioli  i\n\nasses:-we to collect any amount snrintereot Vlaxiarsd aotho. nrnoun!.s'-\n\n  could not have placed.\n\nrelianoo on this i the case: of Commissioner of Income-_. .\n\n i. ._ V' _l;  i\"~:...: .. -\nTux Vs. l3t\u00a3n1L~u)f I'v\u20acud.u1'a:.._L::::itssd, 215 ITR 928,  the sea... can-'.3\n\n   Lu lhi$i\"ae;se,-ssment yours 1975-76 and 1976-77 when\n\ni  ..ijr'ovisiu11 similar to Section 26 C. Furthur the lhotfs\n\n3:5 also _lii_\u00a7+;<;iic_ent \u00bb- in Lhnti the bank, in that case, was collecting\n\n AAinter\u00e9st_.  from its borrowers and paying the saint: i." th"\ni 'oi\ufb01oviornment. The Court held that there was no prohibition to do\n\n---iso. It was held that the amount of tax collected would not \n\n\n\nthe bank was eullecting interest tax_\ufb01TtJI_I_1 its v"()nx.vtl1e. \n\nother hand, in the present case, the aisse9'see'3h:is._ett!leeted"i1)t\u00e9:rest\n\nat a higher rate and that no deduetiun euhttlala hegi-ye\ufb02ii\ufb01' respect of\n\n;;_-.t\n\nsuch amounts white computing the rhargeable il \n\nauttlolgisedm  fxxri\ufb02seeks to draw sustenance from\nthe deeisipii 91" the  "Court in the ease of Indian Banks\n\nAsse;1eiai.ion'4_V"Devsi;at;t Consultancy 267 ITR 179, in this\n\n   Ael, at pages 188-189 thereto.\n\na It:2i.s.'there1bre, prayed that the appeals be allowed and the\n\nnqt1esl.iu11s uflaw be answered in favour of the Revenue.\n\n6\n\n\n\nl'\\\n\n:2. Per contra, Sini. G. Surungan, Senior \n\nappearing for the respondents, euntends__ti1ut.'il.]ieittie' . <\/pre>\n
Tribunal does not warrant interlerenee
\n 1:. is \u00a3:!….1L’-I’.\u00a3.’.e\u00a3.i Li\u00a2*\u00a3’\u00e9..it%’*ii”!}l%’.iIli
\nwould indicate that was .  u itiIni’te<ii3purpose of
\nenabling institutions,    passing on the<\/p>\n
burden of tax u114ier:iI'tl1e Act;  The Counsel would<\/p>\n
submit that J' Fer tnsteizee a mini" Va-a'i'R*s. 10% tent was charged with<\/p>\n
a rate a'._)f interest. et".'..0'\u00a7*'  interest earned would come to Rs.<\/p>\n
10\/-. In ilierltlt-1 of interest tax payable thereon is at<\/p>\n
3%_er"30 \u00abAppliying this to the mnounts eelleeted .3; th,<\/p>\n
accounts inuintained by it, which have been<\/p>\n
serutinii2ed"_'by':tIiei'Revenue, would clearly disclose that out of Rs.<\/p>\n
 10.5019 eelleeited as interest on every Rs. 100, the sum ul'30 paise<\/p>\n
  L11'! In "If! p\ufb02lignag as Ininr:-I51 _ taX_ The-<\/p>\n
n\ufb01ditionai interest so euiieeled is in accordance with the enabling<\/p>\n
provision namely Section 26C and the assessee having acted in<\/p>\n
terms of the same — the Revenue seeking to treat the total sum ut'_<\/p>\n
&<\/p>\n
\\.r<\/p>\n
has therefore, rightly allowed the appeal   <\/p>\n
10. it is also contended_ that’ decivsioni Eanis; <\/p>\n
Madhura (supra) having been  with: ret\ufb01erenceito a-point of
\ntime when Section 26 C  not eaten ‘in_’ei{i’sitence, the ratio of that<\/p>\n
decision would iippiy ,with greater at  ate the  of ‘me<\/p>\n
assessee.   by the Revenue on a<\/p>\n
sentence in _ise]ati<\u00a7n, ,_in -\u00bbl_he__decisi.on, of Indian Bank's Association<\/p>\n
is elearly iuintezzabie…  -_'LiI.!gi!! to be dawn out -1'<\/p>\n
context.\n<\/p>\n
it i’  _   hence that the appeals be dismissed.<\/p>\n
it u   these contentions — we may tirstly, note that the;<\/p>\n
2 ~ ilntexestiiiliayt Act was ena_’_ed by Parliament with effect Iron};<\/p>\n
 $1974. The object of the Act was to impose tax on the totai<\/p>\n
amount of interest received by Scheduled banks and credit<\/p>\n
institutions on loans and advances. The Act was withdrawn in the<\/p>\n
10′<\/p>\n
year 1978, but re-introduced in the year 1980. <\/p>\n
withdrawn in the year 1935. It was re–introduee;3]yet  ii!’  <\/p>\n
_. .:_-._ .r’ : ______ .- ._   V
\n1 ‘ 1. Fiuzuluu  113:-L,._ 1991<\/p>\n
referred to as ‘the 1991 Act’ 1’orh’brevilyV).S’eetion <\/p>\n
with effect from 1.10.1991    same is<\/p>\n
by   day of October, 1991,
\ni_t._shal_I”‘t1e”  fer’  “e:’.sr:.di\u00a3 etnstitution to van; the
\n2:agreen1ei1it’.so..;;:\u00a7’\u00abto in:ei*e,\u00a7.je_ the rate of interest stipulated
\nthe-tetra.  the  such institution is liable to
\npay   this A”: E1 “l*’\u00a3r”1 ta the amaurut
\n‘ Gf.interest’  temms loan which is due to the credit<\/p>\n
 iI1’stiti1’tign.”\n<\/p>\n
 Ftom a plain reading a Section 26 C it is clear that the<\/p>\n
  said previsiun vests a credit institutiutl with power to vary an:<\/p>\n
nt with e lxrrruwer in mggeet Lf :1 I -m it \u00bb m.- it per<\/p>\n
_ _ _-__ – 7 .. _ _… -_ vw–.-. ya— nu… p Q; . —<\/p>\n
“Hpriur to H991, tu increase the rate 01″ interest slipuiuted to the<\/p>\n
2%<\/p>\n
as.-ssssec .u-as,” ‘ ‘antic. a<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
‘II
\nI<\/p>\n
.. .. m …… ..: H . . . .. *..1.’:’.. -1′ ……. .. -r –
\n6}-‘J6 at uf 1u\\2uul.lu|5 ua U 1’;\n<\/p>\n
iiiijy in iu’u’.m::s’L  <\/p>\n
the burden of the tax on its borrowers …. .. _<\/p>\n
13. The argument of  Revenueiithut
\nbe construed as a charging 2 a1i\u00a2l”thst’ ‘tl1e}suid section<\/p>\n
having been introduced-\u00ab.   the hardship of the<\/p>\n
. :1 .. .. .,:  Lin 1h ‘i
\nm.iu.u.1unn nu 4’5 l.)GU[..’\u00a3U \u00bb’r V 1 .J,l;_,_1_)”‘<\/p>\n
E ciedii loan iraiisactiuns<\/p>\n
it’:\n<\/p>\n
7.<\/p>\n
so that such institutions’ can reimburse themselves on<\/p>\n
account..o[ u:ltiinaitely\u00bbil’r\u00a2)1n the borrowers.<\/p>\n
‘ii “14..  liglit  u \ufb01nding by the Tribunal that the<\/p>\n
‘* “‘i”eeinents e”ecu’te\u00a2i subsequent to the period<\/p>\n
 I\u00a7’i.Q.\u00abl9’9:l;;incoiiiiorstcd a term imposing an obligation on its<\/p>\n
‘  toipuy to it such amounts as are payable by the assessee<\/p>\n
V. to the Central or State Governments on nct:t….Int L- any L..- 1’-‘!’$”‘E…’d<\/p>\n
on interest on the loan by such Government, is signilicant. The<\/p>\n
circumstance that the assesses having collected the liability of<\/p>\n
Interest–tax from its borrowers in terms of the contractual<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
._.. 1… .. ._-…_ L ..r ,'”.’.”.;’:\u00ab,.-‘.;._ G”:n
\n11 ‘um ail ugiu i.11_.–S__uu’11uJ,i —-4.’.i’)L_\u00ab<\/p>\n
–> s…\n<\/p>\n
material. And the further circums_l_am:_t_:’  1 . <\/p>\n
maintained a separate account in re:i’pac”i_i_ioi’i tho’oit:o’unls,i_i”ti1oo;gh<\/p>\n
collected as additional interest-.y\u00a7aa,9g in iiititti ia_.\u00bbwa:r:i’s:.’ ‘;y1i1-nt oi<\/p>\n
_, V ,. V’ I.\n<\/p>\n
were not “interest” within’   2(7) of the Act-<\/p>\n
and hence ccJult.l’:1ot_’bo t:featoel~’:as’oli\u00e9itgoziiilis interest for purposes<\/p>\n
15; .__’i’hc  hold that lheidecision in the<\/p>\n
casoiof Bankioi’MaiiI1Lira, isupra, would apply on all tours to the<\/p>\n
‘I   llll’l_h  1 LI 4- AIAIGMIII :—r- 1- !-=- —“–“–‘-‘— “—- :”- –” ‘-“‘i’ ‘
\nV *”‘.’.”\ufb01bt:’.’1.t yang. ::_i’iu ubau: vu’uuu uf ‘um Supi um Cuuli ll! iilu Lube oi<\/p>\n
iilniiia Assiwiuliou, supra, as to the scope ot’Sc:uiion 26C is<\/p>\n
to tile zfoiiowiiilg effect:\n<\/p>\n
A’ ‘   “Si\u00e9ctio11 26C of the Act:\n<\/p>\n
Parliament by reason of the said Act imposed aitax
\non the banks and other \ufb01nancial institution. By mason of
\nthe said Act, the appellants were not statutorily empowered<\/p>\n
to pass ”1: biird’ 1 me bofrowers or reaiise the<\/p>\n
– —–v—-‘, 5 q.-\n<\/p>\n
iu “\ufb013st–tax, does uompoi us to :!’i()is’i iiiiaii\u00e9ilc aniountoso colieutocio<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
terr-..1.s of the agreem Ant o. he term lmm *5<\/p>\n
n -r 5 unit Illlllll<\/p>\n
-tuna, nae u*!5IIv.I.Iuan’_\u00a7””-._<\/p>\n
were not entitled to charge interest at a higher_ra_te_”than  <\/p>\n
agreed one. Section 26C was, tlterefhre, .enri.4cted.co’ to V <\/p>\n
enable the bankers to realise the an1ouni”ut”‘itaxiwhich’ 7 A<\/p>\n
were liable to recover on_tlte_ charge_ahie intereet;V. ::The <\/p>\n
appellants have proceeded one-the’-thesis thef it-“f7in_g regarri<\/p>\n
to the de\ufb01nition of __”chargeabie:’i1tereet” eel cc.ntai_.\ufb01 in
\nsection 2(5) of the the aciiiiditieajlai ~–.i_ntereet_ will have also
\nto be calculated for the  with of tax
\nmust he 4.cala.:t1latc’dV’ ‘which; as noticed
\ni1ereinheiiore.l;\u00a5i’es;tlted .ir1\u20acaddi11.gV  for the purpose<\/p>\n
Qf  NF fir-I: . 9 “Eu” P’ nil.\n<\/p>\n
 _A How _?eit1iament.___thought of the matter is the<\/p>\n
tieestion. .’i’i1e.i”U:iioni”ef’ Inciia does not agree with the<\/p>\n
contention; ot’t..e’a,o\u00a7eeil5a1:teito:’d we. The action on tue<\/p>\n
H ‘ part: of the appellants suggests that they had put the cart
\n l1eforet- the horeeL”””Fhe action of taiun’ g recourse to section<\/p>\n
 ”  T   arise only when the chargeable interest is<\/p>\n
\u00ab celcix\u00a3ate’ci;’Whereupoi1 only the incidence of tax under the<\/p>\n
.w’a;; of additional interest. The entire a,;:\u00bb<\/p>\n
:-l “L. …–..-.—.–.I — 2–\n<\/p>\n
eem  is requued to he pumwu at Ll! *”e borrowers by<\/p>\n
1-1-\n<\/p>\n
-ae.1 ‘ the<\/p>\n
ajjpellants was based on a wrong premise. The said Act, is<\/p>\n
 a taxing statute. The Union of India under the said Act<\/p>\n
cannot direct or permit the bankers or the \ufb01nancial<\/p>\n
institutions of raise interest. The Act must, therefore,<\/p>\n
it ‘ I-‘I-‘ ,4 4… :1…\n<\/p>\n
,….,……… c….e…..ct:u.. so as w \ufb01ve meet I!) me<\/p>\n
urpott and object it seeks to achieve. (see BBC Enterprise<\/p>\n
‘$5<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
T {A ‘II’ I-I:=’-FAA!’ ‘r”I”ll1];\ufb02:l\\I”\u00a3 I fr’ I100
\nWI 7: 11.! 195′] 1′ 3′ a  <\/p>\n
o All 121: mg rra-\u00a3\\\u00ab… ” :_.\n<\/p>\n
in 1.3% \\.Il2__fVV -. _<\/p>\n
at 122-3; Mohan Kumar Singhania v. Union of<\/a>_India, AIR  i
\n1992 sc 1; Murlidhar Megl1rsj'””Loya  _.st_\u00a3ue_or’v..”V
\nMaharashtra [1976] 3 SCC 684; 5$i1per’inter1de1.1t:”  <\/p>\n
Remembraneer of Legal Affairs to Govemnter-1′ West  3<\/p>\n
1′-|–___I s- .l|…..-‘. 11;-.L_ rcnn-up as n,r’I,r1 .n,s_-q 1}-“IL ,,;.”.t-g-_,,V’-,1,
\nD\ufb02ngal V. HD3111 IVE” y 113′ I5″j_>”|’ DLLI UJ’,..l\\.\ufb02\u00a7I_ DEE” V.<\/p>\n
I_I;;s_n_ 9:’ indie {gong} .  S\u00a31;’–._.LI1diar_”Iria__IA;diere_i’\u00a3s<\/p>\n
Emporium v. Union<\/a> —offj–Indi:a_ ‘7\u00bbs_c 446; Ashok
\nLeyland Ltd. v. State of   3 SCC 1;\n<\/p>\n
[2004] 23:1 249  \u00a2os}:.V9r’eGqs:;rat v. Gujarat
\ni<ishan4.I\u20aciazd\u00a7\u00a76rs'r'a;j\u00a2sa5,st"{sees}  5 50)<\/p>\n
V ….  _ ;svent,_j"'\ufb021e' eontentioil of the appellants is<\/p>\n
:.sccepted,'5fne_sar11e would_ give rise to incongruous results.<\/p>\n
Such an interpre;ts.t_io:1._:iVasis–weil-icnowri, must be avoided,<\/p>\n
:4' M', :.1;J.t\u00a2. ' 1.1-.'..+I;ss…"=….., .. ..+,.r..+,….. :…..,_..+ ……..+ I…_
\nll IIV\ufb01!|\u00ab|\ufb02l-7.I\\h .L|o|'L.IuIl\\fl'..I.I'l\\JI\u00a7J, H B Ilnllollly I-IIIEJIJHI lllu\ufb02l. UV<\/p>\n
 'de\ufb01nite.  regard to article 265 read with article
\n 36\ufb01(23)A of the tiehstinrtion of India nothing is realisable as<\/p>\n
  1  way of recovery of tax or any action akin<\/p>\n
\u00ab iliereio vriiieia is not permitted bylaw.<\/p>\n
ii 4' It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that section 26C<\/p>\n
 enabling provision. It has "to be so construed, having<\/p>\n
4' regard to the term "lawful" used therein.<\/p>\n
It merely prevails over an agreement under which
\nany term loan has been sanctioned by fire credit institution
\nbefore October 1, 1991. It was "law\ufb01nl" for the purpose of<\/p>\n
recovering the amount of tax which was payable 'by the<\/p>\n
2%<\/p>\n
'A id' "3' A" _ '~_'_______ ______'_u____ __ _'
\n. rulu Etl\ufb01l\ufb01tivt\ufb01lluc scan lg u 1<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
appellants and a forttori-nothing over and above \ufb01t\u00a2”‘8an1Ye .~   ;_. it ‘
\nSuch increase in the rate of interest would be (Ea)-._:tov jtiaevvn
\nextent to which such institution is liable. tn intetettt
\ntax; (b) in relation to the aittouitttgf iitteseistttcani che’–~\u00a2erm;-t,__  it<\/p>\n
ioan; and (0) which is due totime credit—in\u00a7titution.\u00bb .  . A ” \u00b0<\/p>\n
Increase in the rate of itinteiest in te’r:11_\u00a3t inf section
\n26C of the Act, thus;  a esiit\u00e9ct n\u00e9xiis-.wi\ufb021 tlidstatiitory
\nimpost. The action on’tt1cvpait_ _oi’fti.ie \u00e9pgieiitiitts in r landing<\/p>\n
9*’? m”t!1.e l.r:te::”es., .h!!%’;,v-W\ufb01\ufb02 whet! I’Iii:1nti\ufb01\u00a2_2–:3;<\/p>\n
D I
\n.. .. …,, …_,._.. -.nc_:s !t !_<\/p>\n
held that;mdi’\u00a7\u00a7\u00e9e in inte1?esst”:in ‘avjtistiiiat.)1eTfn1aI1nen’ pertains
\nto’par3st|t’g_\u00ab\u00ab.oit~-  iihg contention that the
\ngang:   *  batik in exercise of its
\n  .r_eja-cit\u00e9d. A taxing statute must<\/p>\n
,.1.i:… _ .. 1.. .. ……s . ..,
\n.131′-.’ J.’_.Ul.l|l.IIg U 1 UV IU ll\ufb02lill U3′ Wily<\/p>\n
 ctrrpstsnbad Essen “””*’-‘ “” ~
\nof _ or _a|(..ti_:_ tt1e1~etqt”which has not been authorised by
\n‘ Patrtianien. .h”’ ” ” V<\/p>\n
  ia:\u00a7’_:3.i.wt’i;t6nal:lc. The assussee has not collected any amount<\/p>\n
 not authorised or expressly prohibited.<\/p>\n
16. We, thertstiirc are of the firm upiniun that the appellant<\/p>\n
-“has not made out any cast: on merits. The appeals are hence<\/p>\n
h-I
\nO’.\n<\/p>\n
dismissed. The questions of law are answered i11’V.’..l_’e_’14*.I.LVV)”L’11E ;)’l”‘\u00abtV.l1\u00a2:<\/p>\n
assess:-.6 and against the Revenues.\n<\/p>\n
11 :\n<\/p>\n
IDIIIV<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008 Author: Deepak Verma Byrareddy bd gs : DATED THIS THE 11*” DAY..QF APR1%L%2a%o3Li i V % *4 PRESENT; T X T H0..r\u00b0BLE mjj; L. or,-p g-._…. 11\u00bb n5I(‘:VF;:i1N;.,a; ‘. ‘ V THE H_I~i”‘BL_L. A1x!A15:DBYRAREDDY%% ” T A I.T.A,..N […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-232840","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008\" \/>\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 M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008 - 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-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-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=\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-05T16:41:44+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-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T16:41:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1797,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-05T16:41:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#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 M\\\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 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":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-05T16:41:44+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-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T16:41:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008"},"wordCount":1797,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-05T16:41:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-canfin-homes-ltd-on-11-april-2008#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 M\/S Canfin Homes Ltd on 11 April, 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\/232840","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=232840"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/232840\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=232840"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=232840"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=232840"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}