{"id":251618,"date":"2008-10-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-10-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008"},"modified":"2016-10-01T14:19:49","modified_gmt":"2016-10-01T08:49:49","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008<\/div>\n
ITA No.505 of 2007                                            1\n\n     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT\n\n                        CHANDIGARH.\n\n\n                                               ITA No.505 of 2007\n                                       Date of decision: 31.10.2008\n\n       The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad\n\n\n                                                     -----Appellant\n                                 Vs.\n       Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma\n\n\n                                                   -----Respondent<\/pre>\n
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
\n            HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL
\nPresent:    Mr. Yogesh Putney, Sr. Standing Counsel for the
\n            revenue.\n<\/p>\n
            Respondent-assessee in person.\n<\/p>\n
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J<\/p>\n
1.          The revenue has preferred this appeal under Section<\/p>\n
260-A<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’), against<\/p>\n
the order dated 16.3.2007 passed by the Income Tax Appellate<\/p>\n
Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘I’, New Delhi in ITA No.83\/DEL\/2005 for<\/p>\n
the assessment year 2001-02, proposing to raise following<\/p>\n
substantial questions of law:-\n<\/p>\n
                “a) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the
\n                case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in
\n ITA No.505 of 2007                                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
               directing the AO to allow deduction under section
\n               80IA<\/a> whereas the question before ITAT was related
\n               to deduction under section 80-IB<\/a>?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the
\n               case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding
\n               that process of assembling carried out by the
\n               assessee is to be understood as amounting to
\n               ‘manufacture’ or production of an article?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
2.         The assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB<\/a><\/p>\n
which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that<\/p>\n
assembling\/job work done by the assessee did not amount to<\/p>\n
manufacturing activity, which was a condition for claiming<\/p>\n
deduction under section 80IB<\/a> of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the<\/p>\n
claim of the assessee, which has been affirmed by the ITAT.<\/p>\n
3.         We have heard learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
4.         In para 2 of the appeal itself, it has been stated that the<\/p>\n
claim of the assessee was under section 80-IB<\/a> of the Act. If claim<\/p>\n
falls under section 80-IB<\/a> of the Act, the same cannot be disallowed<\/p>\n
on the ground that Tribunal erroneously made reference to section<\/p>\n
80-IA<\/a>. Question (a) cannot, thus, held to be substantial question of<\/p>\n
law.\n<\/p>\n
 ITA No.505 of 2007                                                3<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
5.         With regard to Question (b), the finding recorded by the<\/p>\n
Tribunal is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
                        “6. We have considered the rival submission
\n                        carefully. The crux of the dispute before us is
\n                        to establish whether or not the assessee is
\n                        engaged in the manufacture or production of
\n                        an article or thing so as to qualify for
\n                        deduction under section 80IA<\/a> of the Act with
\n                        respect to unit-I. Before we proceed to dilate
\n                        on the legal position, it would be appropriate
\n                        to understand the fact position with regard to
\n                        the process being carried out in Unit-I by the
\n                        assessee. The finished product         of the
\n                        assessee is motorcycle wheel. The raw
\n                        materials\/components used are:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   1.   Rim\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   2.   Tyre\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   3.   Tube\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   4.   Bearing\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   5.   Drum\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   6.   Spoke\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   7.   Nipple\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                   8.   Coller<\/p>\n
                        The process as outlined by the assessee and
\n                        that considered by the lower authorities is
\n                        detailed as shown in the paper book on
\n                        record:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        1. Drum Assembly
\n                        In this process the Collar & Bearing are
\n                        pressed in the Drum with the help of
\n                        pneumatic press.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                        2. Drum & Spoke Assembly
\n ITA No.505 of 2007                                          4<\/span><\/p>\n
                     18 No. each of outer & inner spokes are<\/span>
\n                     assembled with the drum on Assembly
\n                     stands.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     3. Rim & Drum assembly
\n                     In this process the drums assembled as per
\n                     process No.2 is assembled with the Rim by
\n                     tightening Nipples with Spokes and Rim with
\n                     the help of Pneumatic Gun.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     4. Tightening Operation
\n                     The Rim & Drum assembled as per operation
\n                     No.3 are put on the tightening machine for
\n                     tightening the Nipples with spokes with the
\n                     help of Pneumatic Guns.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     5. Balancing Operation
\n                     The Rim & drum assembly after tightening
\n                     operation as per process No.4 is put on
\n                     Balancing Fixture for Balancing Rims with
\n                     the help of Dial Gauges.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     6. Tyre Mounting Operation
\n                     The balanced Rim assembled as per operation
\n                     No.6 is mounted with Tyre & tube with the
\n                     help of tyre Mountin Machine. After
\n                     mounting tyre & tube air is filled to the
\n                     required pressure. Air pressure is checked
\n                     with the help of Air Pressure Gauge.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     7. Final inspection
\n                     The wheels assembled are finally checked on
\n                     fixtures with regard to their Balancing and
\n                     Air pressure with the help of Gauges.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     7. The finished product of the assessee is
\n                     motorcycle wheel which is supplied to the
\n                     motorcycle manufacturer Bajaj Auto Limited.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     8. Having noted the process which is
\n                     involved we have to examine whether the
\n                     activity carried out by the assessee amounts
\n                     to manufacture and if yes, then what does it
\n ITA No.505 of 2007                                               5<\/span><\/p>\n
                     manufacture. From the process noted above,
\n                     it is seen that the assessee brings together the
\n                     various raw materials, components and by
\n                     carrying intermittent processes, assembles
\n                     them together so that they can work as one
\n                     equipment which is termed as a motorcycle
\n                     wheel. The final product which is achieved is
\n                     a result of an assembling process. The final
\n                     product is distinct in character and use than
\n                     each of the components used. This is for the
\n                     reason that none of the components or the
\n                     raw material used can partake the character of
\n                     or be a substitute for the functioning or the
\n                     commercial value attributable to the final
\n                     product.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     9. The moot question is whether assembling
\n                     of different components, which gives rise to
\n                     an article which is totally different from the
\n                     parts, amounts to ‘manufacture’ or not? This
\n                     proposition has been directly answered by the
\n                     Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of
\n                     Tata Locomotices & Enggg. Co.Limited,
\n                     68ITR 325. The following extract of the head
\n                     note of the judgment is worthy of notice.
\n                      “The word “manufacture” has a wider and
\n                      also a narrower connotation. In the wider
\n                      sense it simply means to make, or fabricate
\n                      or bring into existence an article or a product
\n                      either by physical labour or by power, and
\n                      the   word    “manufacturer”     in   ordinary
\n ITA No.505 of 2007                                                6<\/span><\/p>\n
                      parlance would mean a person who makes
\n                      fabricates or brings into existence a product
\n                      or an article by physical labour or power.
\n                      The other shade of meaning, which is the
\n                      narrower meaning, implies transforming raw
\n                      materials into a commercial commodity or a
\n                      finished product which has an entity by
\n                      itself, but this does not necessarily mean that
\n                      the materials with which the commodity is
\n                      so manufactured must lose their identity.
\n                      Thus, both the words “manufacture” and
\n                      “produce” apply to the bringing into
\n                      existence of something which is different
\n                      from its components. Whether one takes into
\n                      account the wider or narrower meaning of
\n                      the word “manufacture”, assembling of
\n                      automotive bus or truck chassis from
\n                      imported   parts in a ‘knocked          down’
\n                      condition, would give rise to an article
\n                      which is totally different from the parts and
\n                      would amount to manufacture. This is so
\n                      even though the component parts from
\n                      which the automotive chassis is made, retain
\n                      their individual identity in the whole article
\n                      which is thus manufactured or produced.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     10. We may also gainfully refer to the
\n                     decisions of the Apex Court in the case of
\n                     Gramophone      company      (I)   Limited       v.
\n                     Collector of Customs<\/a>, (2000) 1 SCC 549 and
\n ITA No.505 of 2007                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
                     UOI v. Delhi Cloth &             General Mils
\n                     Co.Limited<\/a>, (1963) (SUPP) SCR 586 wherein
\n                     the   expression     ‘manufacture’     has     been
\n                     understood to mean transformation of the
\n                     goods into a new commodity commercially
\n                     distinct    and    separate   having    its    own
\n                     character, use and name whether it be the
\n                     result of one or several processes.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     11. Considered in this light, factually
\n                     speaking in the instant case the various parts
\n                     assembled     by     the   assessee    using       its
\n                     machinery results in achieving of a final
\n                     product. The parts or components utilized by
\n                     the assessee in its assembling process
\n                     undergo a transformation and result into a
\n                     product namely motorcycle wheel, which is
\n                     distinct and separate commodity in character,
\n                     name and use than each of the parts or
\n                     components. Therefore, on the basis of the
\n                     principles referred to above, in the instant
\n                     case, it is safe to deduce that the process of
\n                     assembling carried out by the assessee is to
\n                     be understood as amounting to ‘manufacture’
\n                     or production of an article. Therefore, the
\n                     profits derived from each activity is eligible
\n                     for the claim of benefit under section 80IA<\/a> of
\n                     the Act.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 ITA No.505 of 2007                                            8<\/span><\/p>\n
6.         It is clear that the assessee assembles wheel from the<\/p>\n
raw material\/components which are Rim, Tyre, Tube, Bearing,<\/p>\n
Drum, Spoke, Nipple and Coller, by the process which has been<\/p>\n
discussed in the extracted part of judgment of the Tribunal.<\/p>\n
‘Wheel’ is certainly a different item from the components which<\/p>\n
are used in the process.\n<\/p>\n
7.         Learned counsel for the revenue relied upon judgment<\/p>\n
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commr. of Income-tax, Orissa<\/p>\n
v. M\/s. N. C. Budharaja and Company<\/a>, (1993) 204 ITR 412,<\/p>\n
para 7, to submit that unless the commodity subjected to process of<\/p>\n
manufacture can be regarded as new and distinct commodity and<\/p>\n
can no longer be regarded as original commodity, no manufacture<\/p>\n
was involved. In the present case, the product in question was<\/p>\n
‘wheel’ and continued to be wheel and the original commodity<\/p>\n
continued to be as it was and thus, no manufacture was involved.<\/p>\n
8.          We are unable to accept the submission made on behalf<\/p>\n
of the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
9.         The question whether an activity involves manufacture,<\/p>\n
has been gone into in several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court including Union of India v. Delhi Cloth and General<\/p>\n
Mills<\/a>, AIR 1963 SC 791, para 14, Deputy Commissioner of Sales<\/p>\n
Tax (Law), Board of Revenue (Taxes) v. M\/s. PIO Food<\/p>\n
Packers<\/a>, AIR 1980 SC 1227, Empire Industries Limited
\n ITA No.505 of 2007                                              9<\/span><\/p>\n
v.Union of India<\/a>, AIR 1986 SC 662 and M\/s Ujagar Prints etc.<\/p>\n
v. Union of India and others ,AIR 1989 SC 516.<\/p>\n
10.          In absence of any definition in the Act, the word<\/p>\n
‘manufacture’ used in section 80-IB<\/a> has to be given ordinary<\/p>\n
meaning.\n<\/p>\n
11.        In N.C.Budhiraja (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court<\/p>\n
considered earlier judgment in M\/s PIO Food Packers (supra),<\/p>\n
particularly the observation that where commodity retained<\/p>\n
substantial identity, no manufacturing was involved. In the said<\/p>\n
judgment, the question involved was whether manufacturing was<\/p>\n
involved in construction of a dam so as to avail of benefit under<\/p>\n
section 80HH(1)<\/a> of the Act. It was held that the word ‘article’ or<\/p>\n
‘thing’ mentioned in section 80HH<\/a> could not cover dam, bridge,<\/p>\n
building, road, canal and so on. Construction of dam was, thus,<\/p>\n
held not to be manufacture. Though the dam comprised of various<\/p>\n
articles, it was observed that end product could not be held to be an<\/p>\n
article or thing. Dam was constructed and not manufactured.<\/p>\n
12.          Commonly accepted meaning given to the word<\/p>\n
‘manufacture’ as held in the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme<\/p>\n
Court is when a new and different article emerges having<\/p>\n
distinctive name, character or use. In the present case, the Tribunal<\/p>\n
applying the tests laid down in the judgments of the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
Supreme Court, held that distinct article with distinctive name,
\n ITA No.505 of 2007                                               10<\/span><\/p>\n
character and use emerged. The tests laid down in the judgments of<\/p>\n
the Hon’ble Supreme Court have to be applied from case to case.<\/p>\n
The Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact in the present case.<\/p>\n
13.        Question raised by the revenue cannot, thus, be held to<\/p>\n
be substantial question of law.\n<\/p>\n
14.        The appeal is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n                                        (Adarsh Kumar Goel)\n                                                Judge\n\n\n                                              (L.N.Mittal)\nOctober 31, 2008                                   Judge\n'gs'\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008 ITA No.505 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. ITA No.505 of 2007 Date of decision: 31.10.2008 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad —–Appellant Vs. Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma —–Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE […]<\/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-251618","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 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-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-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 Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 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-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-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=\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-01T08:49:49+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=\"9 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-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T08:49:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008\"},\"wordCount\":1827,\"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-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-01T08:49:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-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 Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 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 Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 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-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-01T08:49:49+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008","datePublished":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T08:49:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008"},"wordCount":1827,"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-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-10-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-01T08:49:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-shri-mahesh-chandra-sharma-on-31-october-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 Shri Mahesh Chandra Sharma on 31 October, 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\/251618","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=251618"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251618\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251618"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251618"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251618"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}