{"id":234735,"date":"2011-07-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-06-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-20T02:06:19","modified_gmt":"2016-07-19T20:36:19","slug":"dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Harsha Devani, R.M.Chhaya,<\/div>\n<pre>  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/422\/2003\t 5\/ 5\tJUDGMENT \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 422 of 2003\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n \nFor\nApproval and Signature:  \n \nHONOURABLE\nMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI   Sd\/-\n \n\n \nHONOURABLE\nMR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA     \nSd\/- \n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n1\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tReporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?   \n\t\t\tNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n2\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nTo be\n\t\t\treferred to the Reporter or not ?  NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n3\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\ttheir Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?       \n\t\t\tNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n4\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tthis case involves a substantial question of law as to the\n\t\t\tinterpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order\n\t\t\tmade thereunder ?             NO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n5\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nWhether\n\t\t\tit is to be circulated to the civil judge ?                       \n\t\t\tNO\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\nDY.C.I.T.(ASSTT)\n- Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCADILA\nLABORATORIES LTD. - Opponent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\nAppearance : \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for\nAppellant(s) : 1, \nMR RK PATEL for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\nDate\n: 21\/04\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nJUDGMENT<\/pre>\n<p>(Per<br \/>\n: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThe<br \/>\nappellant-revenue in this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax<br \/>\nAct 1961, (the Act), has challenged the order dated 24.7.2002 made by<br \/>\nthe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench &#8216;C&#8217; (the Tribunal)<br \/>\nin ITA No.5023\/Ahd\/94 for assessment year 1991-92.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tVide<br \/>\norder dated 19.11.2003, this Court while admitting the appeal had<br \/>\nformulated the following substantial question of law  :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Whether<br \/>\nthe appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that<br \/>\nsales tax should not be included in the total turnover for working of<br \/>\ndeduction u\/s. 80HHC?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tThe<br \/>\nCourt had also directed that the matter be heard with  Tax Appeal No.<br \/>\n265 of 1999.\n<\/p>\n<p> Mr. R.K. Patel, learned Advocate,<br \/>\n\tappearing on behalf of the respondent-assessee has drawn the<br \/>\n\tattention of the Court to the order dated 30.5.2007 passed by a<br \/>\n\tDivision Bench of this Court in Tax Appeal No.265 of 1999 in the<br \/>\n\tcase of Assistant Commissioner Vs. Shri Dinesh Mills Ltd., to<br \/>\n\tsubmit that the controversy involved in the present case<br \/>\n\tstands concluded by the said decision in favour of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p> Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, learned Senior<br \/>\n\tStanding Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant is not able<br \/>\n\tto dispute the aforesaid position of law. In the circumstances, it<br \/>\n\tis not necessary to set out the facts and contentions in detail.\n<\/p>\n<p>  A perusal of the above referred<br \/>\n\tdecision of this High Court shows that the Court had held in favour<br \/>\n\tof the assessee by following decision of the Supreme Court in the<br \/>\n\tcase of  CIT Vs. Lakshmi Machine Works, (2007) 290 ITR 667 (SC).<br \/>\n\tThe Supreme Court in<br \/>\n\tcase of Lakshmi Machine Works (supra) has<br \/>\n\theld thus:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;24.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 80-HHC(3) was a beneficial section. It was intended to<br \/>\nprovide incentives to promote exports. The incentive was to exempt<br \/>\nprofits relatable to exports. In the case of combined business of an<br \/>\nassessee having export business and domestic business the legislature<br \/>\nintended to have a formula to ascertain export profits by<br \/>\napportioning the total business profits on the basis of turnovers.<br \/>\nApportionment of profits on the basis of turnover was accepted as a<br \/>\nmethod of arriving at export profits. This method earlier existed<br \/>\nunder the Excess Profits Tax Act, it existed in the Business Profits<br \/>\nTax Act. Therefore, just as commission received by an assessee is<br \/>\nrelatable to exports and yet it cannot form part of &#8220;turnover&#8221;,<br \/>\nexcise duty and sales tax also cannot form part of the &#8220;turnover&#8221;.<br \/>\nSimilarly, &#8220;interest&#8221; emanates from exports and yet<br \/>\n&#8220;interest&#8221; does not involve an element of turnover.\n<\/p>\n<p>25.<br \/>\nThe object of the legislature in enacting Section 80-HHC of the Act<br \/>\nwas to confer a benefit on profits accruing with reference to export<br \/>\nturnover. Therefore, &#8220;turnover&#8221; was the requirement.<br \/>\nCommission, rent, interest, etc. did not involve any turnover.<br \/>\nTherefore, 90% of such commission, interest, etc. was excluded from<br \/>\nthe profits derived from the export. Therefore, even without the<br \/>\nclarification such items did not form part of the formula in Section<br \/>\n80-HHC(3) for the simple reason that it did not emanate from the<br \/>\n&#8220;export turnover&#8221;, much less any turnover. Even if the<br \/>\nassessee was an exclusive dealer in exports, the said commission was<br \/>\nnot includible as it did not spring from the &#8220;turnover&#8221;.<br \/>\nJ ust as interest, commission, etc. did not emanate from the<br \/>\n&#8220;turnover&#8221;, so also excise duty and sales tax did not<br \/>\nemanate from such turnover. Since excise duty and sales tax did not<br \/>\ninvolve any such turnover, such taxes had to be excluded.<br \/>\nCommission, interest, rent, etc. do yield profits, but they do not<br \/>\npartake of the character of turnover and, therefore, they were not<br \/>\nincludible in the &#8220;total turnover&#8221;.&#8221; (Emphasis<br \/>\nsupplied)<\/p>\n<p>7.  In<br \/>\nthe light of the above cited decision of the Supreme Court it is<br \/>\napparent that the controversy involved in the present case stands<br \/>\nconcluded in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances,  the<br \/>\nquestion is answered in the affirmative, that is, the Tribunal was<br \/>\nright in law and on facts in holding that sales tax should not be<br \/>\nincluded in the total turnover for working of deduction under section<br \/>\n80HHC of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tThe<br \/>\nappeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>                                      Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 (H.N.\n<\/p>\n<p>Devani, J.)<\/p>\n<p>                                       Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n<p>                                 (R.M.\n<\/p>\n<p>Chhaya, J.)<\/p>\n<p>M.M.BHATT<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<p>\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gujarat High Court Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011 Author: Harsha Devani, R.M.Chhaya, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/422\/2003 5\/ 5 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 422 of 2003 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI Sd\/- HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA Sd\/- ========================================================= 1 Whether [&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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-234735","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011 - 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\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-19T20:36:19+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=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-19T20:36:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":725,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-19T20:36:19+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011 - 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\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-19T20:36:19+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-19T20:36:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011"},"wordCount":725,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011","name":"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-06-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-19T20:36:19+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/dy-c-i-t-asstt-vs-the-on-1-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Dy.C.I.T.(Asstt) vs The on 1 July, 2011"}]},{"@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\/234735","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=234735"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/234735\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=234735"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=234735"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=234735"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}