{"id":240196,"date":"2008-12-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-12-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008"},"modified":"2018-06-27T18:24:47","modified_gmt":"2018-06-27T12:54:47","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008<\/div>\n
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n                     CHANDIGARH\n                                        ITA No.648 of 2008\n                                  Date of decision: 9.12.2008\n\nThe Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh\n                                                                -----Appellant\n                                      Vs.\n\n\nM\/s Anand Affiliates, Chandigarh\n                                                           --Respondent\n\nCORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n          HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL\n\nPresent:       Ms. Urvashi Dhugga, Standing Counsel for the revenue.\n\n\nAdarsh Kumar Goel,J.\n<\/pre>\n
1.             This appeal has been preferred by the revenue under section<\/p>\n
260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) against the order of<\/p>\n
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ in ITA<\/p>\n
No.1033\/Chandi\/2004 dated 29.12.2006, in respect of assessment year<\/p>\n
1997-98, proposing to raise following substantial question of law:-<\/p>\n
           “Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the
\n           ITAT was correct in holding that business carried out by the
\n           assessee amounted to manufacturing of article or things for the
\n           purposes of deduction under section 80IA of the IT Act, 1961?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.             The assessee has a factory in backward area where the assessee<\/p>\n
produces Automobile Filter elements for M\/s Puralator India Limited, which<\/p>\n
are further used for manufacture of Automobile Filters. The assessee<\/p>\n
claimed deduction under section 80IA of the Act, which was disallowed by<\/p>\n
the assessing authority on the ground that the process carried out by the
\n ITA No.648 of 2008                                                          2<\/span><\/p>\n
assessee did not yield commercially any new or different commodity and<\/p>\n
thus, the assessee could not be held to be engaged in production or<\/p>\n
manufacture. This view was upheld by the CIT(Appeals) but on further<\/p>\n
appeal of the assessee, the Tribunal upheld the claim of the assessee.<\/p>\n
Following finding has been recorded by the Tribunal:-<\/p>\n
                     “8. We have considered the rival submission carefully.
\n             The crux of the dispute i.e., presently before us is to establish as
\n             to whether or not the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of
\n             an article or thing so as to qualify for deduction under section
\n             80IA of the Act. Before we proceed to dilate on the legal
\n             position, it would be appropriate to understand the fact position
\n             with regard to the process canvassed by the assessee. The
\n             finished product of the assessee is automobile filter element. The
\n             raw materials used are:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             1. Filter Paper\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             2. Steel Sheet components\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    a) Centre Tube\/Outer Retainer\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                    b) End Caps.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             3. Adhesives.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             The manufacturing process considered by the lower authorities
\n             is detailed as below:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         \uf0b7    Paper passes through the marathon machine for pleating.
\n         \uf0b7    After pleating of paper, paper passes through the procuring
\n              oven so that the position of pleats has to be permanent.
\n         \uf0b7 Paper is being cut as per the specified length.
\n         \uf0b7 Both ends of the particular length of the paper are being sealed
\n              with the help of a clip at side sealer machine.
\n         \uf0b7    After the sealing of ends, round shape (Vertical) has to be
\n              given to paper and insert into the outer retainer along with a
\n              centre true inside the paper pack. It is called sub assembling.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 ITA No.648 of 2008                                                          3<\/span><\/p>\n
         \uf0b7   PVC adhesive to be filled in the end cap with the help of PVC
\n             dispenser machine.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         \uf0b7   Place cap on one end of sub assembly and passes it through
\n             jeller having a constant temperature for curing of adhesive.
\n         \uf0b7   Fill another cap with adhesive with the help of dispenser, place
\n             on the other end and passes if through FCO at specified
\n             temperature of curing of PVC adhesive and paper.
\n         \uf0b7 Find Product-Semi-finished Automotive filter.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         9. The finished product of the assessee i.e. Automobile Filter
\n         element is a semi-finished automotive filter, which is supplied to
\n         the original equipment manufacturer in Automotive Filter industry
\n         i.e. M\/s Purolator India Limited.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         10. Having noted the process which is involved, we have to
\n         examine whether the activity carried out by the assessee amounts
\n         to manufacture and if yes, then what does it manufacture. From the
\n         process noted above that the assessee brings together the various
\n         raw materials, components and by carrying intermittent processes,
\n         assembles them together so that they can work as one equipment
\n         which is termed as a semi-finished Automotive Filter. The semi-
\n         finished Automotive Filter, which the assessee manufactures as a
\n         result of various processes is a product, which is distinct by
\n         character as also in its use than each of raw materials. This is for
\n         the reason that none of the components or the raw material used
\n         can partake the character of or be a substitute for the functions
\n         performed by the finished product of the assessee.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
3.           We have heard learned counsel for the revenue and perused the<\/p>\n
impugned order.\n<\/p>\n
4.           Learned counsel for the revenue submits that the activity of the<\/p>\n
assessee was merely assembling certain components, which did not give rise<\/p>\n
to any new product, particularly when the assessee, on job work basis, did a
\n ITA No.648 of 2008                                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
part of process and finishing was done by the principal for whom the<\/p>\n
assessee was supplying. Activity resulting in production of semi-furnished<\/p>\n
product could not be held to be manufacturing. The identity of the items<\/p>\n
used in the manufacture did not undergo a complete change.<\/p>\n
5.           We are unable to accept the submission.\n<\/p>\n
6.           The Tribunal has discussed the nature of raw materials and the<\/p>\n
process conducted by the assessee resulting in production of automobile<\/p>\n
filter element, which is supplied to the automobile manufacturer. The<\/p>\n
assessee brings together various raw materials and after carrying out<\/p>\n
process, assembles the same leading to the equipment being produced. It is<\/p>\n
well settled that every change or process cannot be termed as manufacture<\/p>\n
or production. Well known tests applied for determining whether a process<\/p>\n
amounted to manufacture or production are that a new and distinct<\/p>\n
commercial product is produced. In each case, it may be a question of fact<\/p>\n
whether a particular process involves manufacture or not. The question may<\/p>\n
be of degree and extent of change and though, the issue may at times be<\/p>\n
debatable, by applying the relevant      tests, the Tribunal has recorded a<\/p>\n
finding and such finding cannot be held to be perverse, it cannot be held<\/p>\n
that a substantial question of law arises.The Tribunal has applied the correct<\/p>\n
test and recorded a finding that the process undertaken by the assessee<\/p>\n
involved manufacture. Merely because a different view can be taken will<\/p>\n
not be a ground to hold that a substantial question of law arises.<\/p>\n
8.           In a recent order of this Court dated 31.10.2008 in ITA No.505<\/p>\n
of 2007 (The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad v. Shri Mahesh<\/p>\n
Chandra Sharma),<\/a> dealing with an identical issue, it was observed:-
\n ITA No.648 of 2008                                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
                     “9.The    question    whether    an    activity   involves
\n                     manufacture, has been gone into in several judgments of
\n                     the Hon’ble Supreme Court including Union of India v.
\n                     Delhi Cloth and General Mills, AIR<\/a> 1963 SC 791, para
\n                     14, Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax (Law), Board
\n                     of Revenue (Taxes) v. M\/s. PIO Food Packers, AIR<\/a>
\n                     1980 SC 1227, Empire Industries Limited v.Union of
\n                     India, AIR 1986 SC 662 and M\/s Ujagar Prints etc. v.
\n                     Union of India and others ,AIR 1989 SC 516.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     10.           In absence of any definition in the Act, the
\n                     word ‘manufacture’ used in section 80-IB has to be given
\n                     ordinary meaning.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     11.         In N.C.Budhiraja (supra), the Hon’ble
\n                     Supreme Court considered earlier judgment in M\/s PIO
\n                     Food Packers (supra), particularly the observation that
\n                     where commodity retained substantial identity, no
\n                     manufacturing was involved. In the said judgment, the
\n                     question involved was whether         manufacturing was
\n                     involved in construction of a dam so as to avail of benefit
\n                     under section 80HH(1) of the Act. It was held that the
\n                     word ‘article’ or ‘thing’ mentioned in section 80HH could
\n                     not cover dam, bridge, building, road, canal and so on.
\n                     Construction of dam was, thus, held not to be
\n                     manufacture. Though the dam comprised of various
\n                     articles, it was observed that end product could not be
\n                     held to be an article or thing. Dam was constructed and
\n                     not manufactured.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     12.          Commonly accepted meaning given to the
\n                     word ‘manufacture’ as held in the judgments of the
\n                     Hon’ble Supreme Court is when a new and different
\n                     article emerges having distinctive name, character or use.
\n                     In the present case, the Tribunal applying the tests laid
\n                     down in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
\n ITA No.648 of 2008                                                           6<\/span><\/p>\n
                     held that distinct article with distinctive name, character
\n                     and use emerged. The tests laid down in the judgments of
\n                     the Hon’ble Supreme Court have to be applied from case
\n                     to case. The Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact in the
\n                     present case.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
9.           Thus, the question raised cannot be held to be a substantial<\/p>\n
question of law.\n<\/p>\n
8.           Dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                                (Adarsh Kumar Goel)\n                                                           Judge\n\n\nDecember 9, 2008                                       (L.N.Mittal)\n'gs'                                                        Judge\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ITA No.648 of 2008 Date of decision: 9.12.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax II, Chandigarh —–Appellant Vs. M\/s Anand Affiliates, Chandigarh –Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-240196","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-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 Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 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-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-27T12:54:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\\\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-27T12:54:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1376,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\\\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-27T12:54:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-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 Ii vs M\\\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-27T12:54:47+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008","datePublished":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-27T12:54:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008"},"wordCount":1376,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-12-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-27T12:54:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-ii-vs-ms-anand-affiliates-on-9-december-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 Ii vs M\/S Anand Affiliates on 9 December, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240196","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=240196"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/240196\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=240196"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=240196"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=240196"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}