{"id":251723,"date":"1960-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1960-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960"},"modified":"2017-11-10T00:16:24","modified_gmt":"2017-11-09T18:46:24","slug":"the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of … vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of … vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 738, 1960 SCR (3) 130<\/div>\n
Author: P Gajendragadkar<\/div>\n
Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCHANDULAL KESHAVLAL & CO., PETLAD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n17\/02\/1960\n\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nBENCH:\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B.\nSARKAR, A.K.\nSUBBARAO, K.\n\nCITATION:\n 1960 AIR  738\t\t  1960 SCR  (3) 130\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1961 SC 668\t (8,12)\n R\t    1961 SC1028\t (7,8)\n F\t    1973 SC2486\t (4,8)\n R\t    1979 SC1441\t (21)\n\n\nACT:\n       lncome-tax-Managing  Agent relinquishing part of\t commission\n       due  from  managed company-Whether  amount  relinquished\t is\n       deductible  as expenditure expended wholly  and\texclusively\n       for  Purpose of his business-Finding, if one of\tfact-Indian\n       Income-tax Act<\/a>, 1922 (XI Of 1922), S. 1O(2) (XV).\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe assessee was the Managing Agent of a company and for the\naccounting  year 950 its total commission was Rs.  3,09,114.\nAt  the\t oral request of the Directors of the  Company\tmade\nduring the accounting year the assessee agreed to accept Rs.\n1,00,000  only\tas  its\t commission  and  relinquished\t the\nbalance.  The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant\nCommissioner  hold that the sum of Rs. 3,09,114 had  accrued\nto  the respondent as commission and that the  whole  amount\nwas taxable.  On appeal the Appellate Tribunal held that out\nof the accrued commission the amount relinquished, i.e.\t Rs.\n2,09,114,  was allowable expenditure under S. 10(2) (XV)  Of\nthe  Income-tax\t Act.\tThe Tribunal  found  that:  (i)\t the\nfinancial    condition\t of   the   managed   company\t was\nunsatisfactory, (ii) in the past also the assessee had\tbeen\nremitting  part or whole of its commission when the  profits\nof  the\t managed company were unsatisfactory, (iii)  in\t the\nyear  of account the profits of the Company would have\tbeen\nRs.  3,63,078  if the whole commission was  deducted,  which\nwould be the lowest since 1940, (iv) it was not a bounty  by\nthe  respondent to the managed company, (v) the business  of\nthe  respondent\t was so linked up with the  managed  company\nthat  if  the  latter  was put on  a  sounder  position\t the\nassessee  would also get a larger commission in future,\t and\n(vi)  the  respondent  had  accepted  Rs.  1,00,000  at\t the\ninstance  of the managed company.  The\tappellant  contended\nthat  S.  10(2)(xv)<\/a> applied only when  the  expenditure\t was\nincurred  directly  for the purpose of the business  of\t the\nassessee  and  not  when  it  affected\this  business\tonly\nindirectly  as\ta  result  of the  benefit  to\tthe  managed\ncompany.\nHeld, that the finding of the Tribunal that the amount which\nwas claimed as a deductible allowance under S. 1O(2)(XV)<\/a> was\nlaid  out  wholly  and exclusively for the  purpose  of\t the\nassessee's  business  was  one\tof fact\t and  as  there\t was\nevidence to support it, it could not be interfered with.  In\ndeciding  whether the payment was a  deductible\t expenditure\nthe question of commercial expediency and the principles  of\nordinary   commercial\ttrading\t had  to   be\ttaken\tinto\nconsideration.\t If the payment of expenditure was  incurred\nfor the purpose of the trade or business of the assessee  it\ndid  not matter that the payment enured to the benefit of  a\nthird party also.  Another test was whether the\t transaction\nwas  properly  entered\tinto as a  part\t of  the  assessee's\nlegitimate\n39\ncommercial  undertaking in order to facilitate the  carrying\non  of\tits business.  But if the expense was  incurred\t for\nfostering the business of another only or was made by way of\ndistribution of profits or was wholly gratuitous or for some\nimproper  or oblique purpose outside the course of  business\nthen the expense was not deductible.\nTata  Sons  Ltd v. The Commissioner of\tIncome-tax,  Bombay<\/a>,\n(1950) I.T.R. 46o, Union Cold Storage Company Ltd. v. jones,\n8  T.C.\t 725  and Odhams Press Ltd. v. Cook,  23  T.C.\t233,\nreferred to.\nUsher's\t Wiltsltire  Brewery  Ltd. v.  Bruce,  6  T.C.\t399,\nEasterr Investments Ltd. v. The Commissioner of\t Income-tax,\nWest  Bengal<\/a>.  [1951]  S.C.R. 594 and  Atherton\t v.  British\nInsulated & Helsby Cables Ltd, 1o T.C. 156, relied on\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION’: Civil Appeal No. 167 of 1958.
\n       Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated
\n       the February 15, 1955 of the Bombay High Court in Income-tax
\n       Reference No. 29 of 1953.\n<\/p>\n
       C.   K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, -B.  Ganapathi
\n       Iyer and -D.  Gupta, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
       N.A.  Palkhivala\t and  I.  N.  Shro  for\t respondent.  1960.
\n       February 17 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n       KAPUR  J.-This  is an appeal by special\tleave  against\tthe
\n       judgment\t and order of the High Court of Bombay.\t It  arises
\n       out  of\ta reference by the Income. tax\tAppellate  Tribunal
\n       under  s.  66(1)<\/a> of the Indian Income-tax  Act  (hereinafter
\n       termed  the  Act.)  The\tappellant in  this  appeal  is\tthe
\n       Commissioner   of  Income-tax  and  the\trespondent   is\t  a
\n       partnership firm which, by an agreement dated September\t23,
\n       1935,  was appointed the Managing Agent of the Keshav  Mills
\n       Ltd.,  Petlad.  For the sake of convenience  the\t respondent
\n       firm  will, in this judgment, be termed the  Managing  Agent
\n       and the Keshav Mills Ltd., the Managed Company.\tBy cl. 4 of
\n       this  agreement the’ Managing Agent was to get a\t commission
\n       of 4% on the sale proceeds of the cloth, yarn or other goods
\n       manufactured  and sold by the company and 15% on the  amount
\n       of  bills for charges of ginning and pressing and dyeing\t or
\n       bleaching  and on the amount of labour bills and other  work
\n       done  in\t the running of the factory.   The  commission\twas
\n       exclusive of other charges such as adat, interest, discount,
\n       brokerage etc.
\n       40<\/span>
\n       The  amount of commission was to be credited in the  account
\n       of  the Managing Agent every six months and it was  entitled
\n       to  interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum  on\tthe
\n       amount  so  credited.  There were other\tconditions  in\tthe
\n       Agency Agreement which are not necessary for the purposes of
\n       this  case.   The total commission for the  accounting  year
\n       1950  was  a  sum  of Rs.  3,09,114.   Sometime\tduring\tthe
\n       accounting  year,  at  the  oral request\t of  the  Board\t of
\n       Directors of the Managed Company, the Managing Agent  agreed
\n       to accept a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 only as its commission which
\n       was  credited  to the account of the Managing Agent  in\tthe
\n       books  of  the  company at the end of the  year\t1950.\tThe
\n       Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant  Commissioner
\n       held  that  the amount which accrued as\tcommission  to\tthe
\n       Managing Agent was Rs. 3,09,114 and that amount was taxable.
\n       An appeal was taken to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal\t by
\n       the  Managing Agent.  By an order dated February\t 26,  1953,
\n       the Appellate Tribunal held that the amount which accrued to
\n       the  Managing  Agent as commission was Rs. 3,09,114  but\t it
\n       accepted Rs. 1,00,000 as taxable income and Rs. 2,09,114 was
\n       held  to be an allowable expenditure within s. 10(2)(xv)<\/a>\t of
\n       the  Act and it was therefore allowed.  The Tribunal in\tits
\n       order said that in the past also the Managing Agent had,\t in
\n       the interest of the Managed Company, waived a portion of the
\n       Commission and then made the following observation:
\n       ”  The  Tribunal has also held that if the  Managing  Agency
\n       Commission or a part thereof is foregone in the interest\t of
\n       the  Managed Company, it would be allowed as an\texpenditure
\n       under  Section  10(2)(xv)<\/a> of the Act.  We allow\tthe  amount
\n       foregone under Section 10(2)(xv)<\/a>.”\n<\/p>\n
       Against this order, at the instance of the appellant, a case
\n       was  stated to the Bombay High Court for its opinion on\tthe
\n       following two questions:\n<\/p>\n
       (i)Whether  on  the facts and in the  circumstances  of\tthe
\n       case, the sum of Rs. 2,09,114 was assessable in the hands of
\n       the assessee as its income.\n<\/p>\n
       (ii) If\tthe  answer to question (i) is in  the\taffirmative
\n       whether the said sum is an allowable
\n       41<\/span>
\n       deduction from the assessee’s income under Section 10(2)(xv)<\/a>
\n       of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
       The judgment of the High Court shows that it was inclined to
\n       decide the questions in favour of the appellant, but at\tthe
\n       instance\t of the Managing Agent the Appellate  Tribunal\twas
\n       directed to submit a supplementary Statement.
\n       No fresh evidence was led before the Tribunal but it appears
\n       that  some  emphasis was laid on a letter  of  the  Managing
\n       Agent  dated  September\t18, 1951, sent\tto  the\t Income-tax
\n       Officer.\t In this letter the Managing, Agent had stated that
\n       the  only  commission which accrued to it was a sum  of\tRs.
\n       1,00,000\t and  nothing  had been foregone from  out  of\tthe
\n       commission  or  relinquished.  It is also  stated  that\tthe
\n       amount  of Rs. 1,00,000 accrued because of the variation\t of
\n       the  terms of the Managing Agency Agreement.  Reference\twas
\n       also made in the letter to the Balance Sheet of the  Managed
\n       Company\tending December 31, 1950, showing that the paid\t up
\n       capital\twas  rupees 30 lacs, depreciation  fund\t rupees\t 14
\n       lacs,  totalling\t rupees 44 lacs.  As against this  sum\tthe
\n       Block  Account showed a debit of over rupees 48 lacs and\t it
\n       was with the object of strengthening the financial  position
\n       of the Managed Company and in its interest that the Chairman
\n       of  the\tBoard of Directors had requested and  the  Managing
\n       Agent had agreed to aceept rupees 1 lac as commission.\tThe
\n       Income-tax  Appellate  Tribunal submitted  a,  supplementary
\n       Statement  of Case dated May 3, 1954, in which it  said\t(1)
\n       that  there was no oblique motive in accepting Rs.  1,00,000
\n       instead\tof  rupees 3 lacs odd as commission  and  that\tthe
\n       remission  was bona fide.  It was also remarked that it\twas
\n       not  even faintly suggested by the Department that what\twas
\n       given up by the Managing Agent from the commission was  done
\n       with  some dishonest motive; (2) the amount foregone by\tthe
\n       Managing\t Agent\twas  an\t expenditure  incurred\twholly\tand
\n       exclusively for the purpose of the business of the  Managing
\n       Agent; (3) that when the appeal was decided by the Appellate
\n       Tribunal\t it  did not have the slightest doubt in  its  mind
\n       that    the   commission\t  was\tforegone    for\t   business
\n       considerations; and (4) that the
\n       6<\/span>
\n       42<\/span>
\n       amount  was given up or expended for reasons  of\t commercial
\n       expediency.    A\t  very\t significant   Paragraph   in\tthe
\n       supplementary  Statement of the Case was paragraph  4  which
\n       stated:.\n<\/p>\n
       ”  It  was  assumed that what was in  the  interest  of\tthe
\n       managed\tcompany was in the interest of the managing  agent.
\n       file interests of the managing agent and the managed company
\n       are, so to say, linked up.  If the managed company is put on
\n       a sounder position, not only the shareholders of the managed
\n       company\tbenefit, but also the managing agent,  inasmuch\t as
\n       the managing agent would get a larger commission in future.”
\n       The basic facts which arise out of the Statement of the Case
\n       and the documents which were produced by the Managing  Agent
\n       are: (1) the rather unsatisfactory financial position of the
\n       Managed\tCompany as shown by the Balance Sheet; (2)  in\tthe
\n       past  also the Managing Agent had been remitting a  part\t or
\n       whole of the commission whenever the profits of the  Managed
\n       Company were unsatisfactory; (3) in the year of account\tthe
\n       profits\tof  the\t managed company as  per  profit  and  loss
\n       account\twere  Rs. 5,72,192.  This was after paying  to\tthe
\n       Managing Agent a commission of Rs. 1,00,000 and if the whole
\n       of the accrued commission had been deducted then the profits
\n       would  have  been  Rs. 3,63,078 which would  be\tthe  lowest
\n       amount  since 1940 -and the amount of commission would  have
\n       been  the highest; (4) it was not a bounty by  the  Managing
\n       Agent  to  the  Managed Company; (5)  the  business  of\tthe
\n       Managing\t Agent\twas so linked up with the  Managed  Company
\n       that  if\t the  latter  was put on  a  sounder  position\tthe
\n       Managing Agent would also get a larger commission in future;
\n       and (6) the Managing Agent had accepted Rs. 1,00,000 at\tthe
\n       instance\t of the Chairman of the Board of Directors  of\tthe
\n       Managed\tCompany.   This\t was  the  material  on\t which\tthe
\n       Tribunal gave a finding in its suppementary Statement I that
\n       what was given up by the assessee was an expenditure for the
\n       purpose of the assessee’s business’.  On this statement\tthe
\n       High Court by its judgment dated February 15, 1955, held
\n       43<\/span>
\n       the finding of the Appellate Tribunal to be one of fact.\t It
\n       said :\n<\/p>\n
       ”  Now  this  is\t a finding of fact and\tunless\tit  can\t be
\n       suggested that there was no evidence to support the  finding
\n       of fact we are concluded by this finding of fact.”
\n       Therefore  the  question\t in  regard  to\t s.  10(2)(xv)<\/a>\twas
\n       answered\t in  favour of the Managing Agent.  It\tis  against
\n       this  judgment  and order that the. appellant  has  come\t in
\n       appeal to this Court by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
       For  the appellant it was argued that there was no  evidence
\n       in support of the finding that the amount of about rupees  2
\n       lacs which was foregone by the Managing Agent was wholly and
\n       exclusively laid out for the purpose of the Managing Agent’s
\n       business\t and  emphasis\twas  laid on  the  finding  of\tthe
\n       Appellate  Tribunal  in its order dated February\t 26,  1953,
\n       that  in the past the -Commission had been given up  by\tthe
\n       Managing\t Agent in the interest of the Managed  Company\tand
\n       that if the Managing Agent’s commission or part thereof\twas
\n       foregone\t in the interest of the Managed Company it was\tnot
\n       an  allowable expenditure under s. 10(2)(xv)<\/a>.  It  was  also
\n       argued that there was no evidence in support of the  finding
\n       that the amount was expended for the benefit of the Managing
\n       Agent  and  that even if as -a result of\t the  amount  being
\n       foregone the Managing Agent was helped because it  benefited
\n       the  Managed  Company,  then  s.\t 10(2)(xv)<\/a>  would  not\t be
\n       attracted;  in other words the question had to be looked\t at
\n       from the point of view of the direct concern of the Managing
\n       Agent  and not of remoter or indirect result which may  flow
\n       as  a  result of the benefit to the Managed Company  and\t in
\n       each  case the question on each set of facts is whether\tthe
\n       benefit\tis to the assessee i. e., the Managing Agent or\t to
\n       some one else.\n<\/p>\n
       In his argument the learned Solicitor General referred to  t
\n       & following cases:\n<\/p>\n
       Tata  Sons  Ltd. v. The Commissioner of\tIncome-tax,  Bombay<\/a>
\n       (1).   There the assessee was the Managing Agent of  another
\n       company\tand was entitled to receive commission on  the\tnet
\n       profits of the Managed Com-\n<\/p>\n
       (1)  [1950] 18 I.T.R. 460.\n<\/p>\n
       44<\/span><\/p>\n
       pany.   During  the relevant year the  assessee\tvoluntarily
\n       paid  a\tsum of money towards the bonus\twhich  the  Managed
\n       Company\tpaid  to some of its officers and claimed it  as  a
\n       deductible expenditure under s. 10(2)(xv)<\/a> of the Act.   This
\n       deduction  was allowed on the ground that the object of\tthe
\n       payment from the point of view of commercial principles\twas
\n       to  increase the profits of the Managed Company and  thereby
\n       the  Commission of the Managing Agent.  It was  argued-there
\n       also  that  the\tpayment was entirely  gratuitous  but  that
\n       contention  was repelled, because the object of the  payment
\n       from  the  point\t of view of commercial\tprinciples  was\t to
\n       increase\t the efficiency of the Managed Company and  thereby
\n       to  increase  the  profits of the Managed  Company  and\tthe
\n       commission  of  the Managing Agent.  And thus there  was\t an
\n       important nexus between the Managed Company and the Managing
\n       Agent.  It was also held that the question whether money was
\n       wholly expended or laid out for the purpose of the  business
\n       of  the assessee company must be determined upon\t principles
\n       of ordinary commercial trading.\n<\/p>\n
       The second case was Union Cold Storage Company Ltd. v. Jones
\n       (1).   There a British company transferred its foreign  cold
\n       storage\tbusiness  carried  on by  it  directly\tor  through
\n       subsidiary  companies to an American Company for a  term\t of
\n       years  in  consideration of certain annual payments  to\tthe
\n       subsidiary  companies  and  of  a  guarantee  of\t any   sum.
\n       necessary  to  meet  its\t fixed\tcharges\t and  maintain\tits
\n       dividends.   The\t property  remained  the  property  of\tthe
\n       British Company but it was placed under the sole control\t of
\n       and  was used by the American Company for its own  business.
\n       There was no demise or lease to the American Company and\t no
\n       rent was payable but the American Company was to keep it\t in
\n       proper  repair and working order.  The British Company  paid
\n       fire insurance premiums in respect of the premises machinery
\n       etc., and claimed deductions for the sums so paid out of its
\n       profits and for wear and tear of the machinery and plant\t of
\n       the  transferred business.  It was held that  the  insurance
\n       premiums did not
\n       (1)  8 T.C. 725.\n<\/p>\n
       45<\/span><\/p>\n
       represent  money\t wholly and exclusively laid  out  for\tthe
\n       purpose\tof trade of the assessee company as  the  machinery
\n       and  plant  were\t not  used  for\t those\tpurposes  and\tthe
\n       deductions  claimed were therefore not admissible.   It\twas
\n       argued  in  that\t case that by the  agreement  the  assessee
\n       company\thad secured not only the right to receive upto\tthe
\n       sum specified but also that the American company would  have
\n       an  incentive  to send business to the assessee\tcompany\t in
\n       order  that its profits should reach that  specified  figure
\n       and  therefore the expenditure was deductible.  But  it\twas
\n       held that in order to be so deductible it had to be for\tthe
\n       benefit\tof  the\t trade\twhich  immediately  concerned\tthe
\n       assessee company.  It was also held that if it was of such a
\n       nature then the deduction was prima facie a proper one  even
\n       though  it might inure to the benefit Of a third\t party\tand
\n       the  matter bad to be tested from the point of view  of\tthe
\n       assessee company.\n<\/p>\n
       The  learned Solicitor General relied upon a passage in\tthe
\n       judgment at p. 741 :\n<\/p>\n
       “………… they (the Commissioners) find that there was a
\n       reflex result of this Agreement which inured to the  benefit
\n       of the Appellant Company but I think in terms they  indicate\n<\/p>\n
       -that  that  result  was not a direct result  but  a  reflex
\n       result.\tIn their reasons in which they came to\ttheir  con-
\n       clusion they say the arrangements with regard to the  stores
\n       and  machinery and plant were not of an ordinary nature\tand
\n       they  did not extend the Appellant Company’s  market.   They
\n       also  say that the machinery and plant in question  is  used
\n       primarily  for  the purposes of the trade  of  the  National
\n       Company.\t With those findings before us I think it is  quite
\n       clear  as  a  matter  of\t fact  that  the  facts\t so   found
\n       differentiate this case wholly from Usher’s case.”
\n       From  this  it was sought to be argued that what one  is\t to
\n       look at is the direct result to the assessee and not remoter
\n       or indirect results. , What the court found in that case was
\n       that insurance premiums were paid by the British Company\t as
\n       owners and not in the course of business and that the assets
\n       were  used  not\tfor its business but for  the  business\t of
\n       another.\n<\/p>\n
       46<\/span><\/p>\n
       The real test laid down after reference to Usher’s Wiltshire
\n       Brewery\tLtd. v. Bruce(1) was that deduction may be  allowed
\n       in  cases where the payment or expenditure is  incurred\tfor
\n       the  purpose of the trade of the subject making\tthe  return
\n       and  it does not matter that this payment may inure  to\tthe
\n       benefit of a third party.\n<\/p>\n
       Another\tcase relied on was Eastern Investments Ltd. v.\tThe
\n       Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal<\/a> (2) where a  private
\n       limited\tcompany had a share capital of rupees 250  lacs\t of
\n       which  shares of the value of rupees 50 lacs were held by  A
\n       and the remaining by his nominees.  The company was in  need
\n       of  money ,and with the consent of A it resolved\t to  reduce
\n       the  share capital by rupees 50 lacks by the company  taking
\n       over  rupees  50\t lacs  worth of shares\tand  issuing  to  A
\n       debentures  of  the face value of rupees\t 50  lacs  carrying
\n       interest at 5%.\tThe Income-tax Appellate -Tribunal and\tthe
\n       High  Court held that the interest on debentures was not\t an
\n       allowable  expenditure  under  s. 12(2)<\/a> of  the\tAct.   This
\n       Court,  on appeal, was of the opinion that  the\ttransaction
\n       was  of\ta commercial nature from the point of view  of\tthe
\n       assessee company and on a review of all the facts it came to
\n       the conclusion that the transaction was voluntarily  entered
\n       into  id order indirectly to facilitate the carrying  on\t of
\n       the  business of the company and so made on the\tground\t-of
\n       commercial  expediency.\tThe argument .-,hat the\t debentures
\n       were held by the shareholder was rejected on the ground that
\n       it  made no difference whether the debentures were  held\t by
\n       the  shareholder or by an outsider.  The test laid  down\t by
\n       this  case therefore was that in the absence of fraud or\t an
\n       oblique motive and if a transaction is of a nature which\t is
\n       entered\tinto in the course of business of the assessee\tand
\n       is  commercially expedient then it does become a\t deductible
\n       allowance.   If as a result of the transaction the  assessee
\n       benefits\t it is immaterial that a third party also  benefits
\n       thereby.\t At page 599, Bose J., observed;\n<\/p>\n
       “In  the\t absence  of s suggestion of a fraud  this  is\tnot
\n       relevant at all for giving effect to the provi-
\n       (1) 6 T.C.399.\n<\/p>\n
       (2) [1951) S.C.R. 594.\n<\/p>\n
       47<\/span><\/p>\n
       sions  of  section  12(2)<\/a>  of  the  Income-tax  Act.    Most
\n       commercial  transactions\t are entered into  for\tthe  mutual
\n       benefit\tof  both sides, or at any rate each side  hopes\t to
\n       gain something for itself.  The test for present purposes is
\n       not  whether the other party benefited, nor  indeed  whether
\n       this  was a prudent transaction which resulted  in  ultimate
\n       gain  to the appellant, but whether it was properly  entered
\n       into  ‘as  a part of the appellant’s  legitimate\t commercial
\n       undertaking  in order indirectly to facilitate the  carrying
\n       on of its business.”\n<\/p>\n
       In  Odhams  Press Ltd. v. Cook(1) the assessee  company\thad
\n       acquired all the shares in a subsidiary company and  printed
\n       and published a periodical for the subsidiary company.\tThe
\n       subsidiary  company made a loss during the  accounting  year
\n       and the assessee company wrote off that amount of loss  from
\n       the  amounts  due  to it from  the  subsidiary  company\tand
\n       claimed a deduction of that loss from its profits on trading
\n       account or as money laid out or expended for the purpose\t of
\n       its trade.  The Special Commissioners found that the sum was
\n       not  written  off wholly or exclusively for the\tpurpose\t of
\n       their trade or business and therefore it was an inadmissible
\n       deduction.   This  question was held to be one of  fact\tand
\n       that   there  was  evidence  to\tjustify\t that\tconclusion.
\n       Viscount Caldecote L.C., said that the trade or the business
\n       of  one Company even though it may affect very  closely\tthe
\n       trade or business of another was not the same thing as  that
\n       other’s\ttrade  or business.  In computing the  profits\tand
\n       gains  of  the  assessee,  it is his trade  that\t is  to\t be
\n       regarded.  At page 1 10, Viscount Maugham observed:
\n       “My Lords, the question thus put answers itself.\t There were
\n       beyond  dispute, the two relationships, between the  Company
\n       and  the\t Coming Fashions Ltd., already\treferred  to.\tThe
\n       allowance of the pound 2927 5s. 8d. to Coming Fashions Ltd.,
\n       might  have been I laid out or expended for the\tpurpose\t of
\n       the  trade’ of Coming Fashions Ltd., or to some\textent\tfor
\n       both  purposes and it is plain that these facts\talone  were
\n       sufficient to show that there was evidence
\n       (1)  23 T. C. 233.\n<\/p>\n
       48<\/span><\/p>\n
       to  justify the conclusion of the Commissioner that the\tsum
\n       written\toff was not written off wholly and exclusively\tfor
\n       the purpose of the trade or business of the Appellants.”
\n       The   connection\t between  the  assessee\t company  and\tthe
\n       subsidiary  company, apart from the holding of  shares,\twas
\n       that  the  assessee company id printing for  the\t subsidiary
\n       company.\t  The  effect of the transaction  was  debiting\t of
\n       another entity’s loss to the assessee company but there\twas
\n       no  direct  connection between the profits of  the  assessee
\n       company with that of the amount claimed.\t The real point\t in
\n       that case was that the amount was not wholly and exclusively
\n       written\toff  for  the  purpose\tof  the\t assessee  company.
\n       Viscount Maugham said:\n<\/p>\n
       “Is  there  any real ground for contending on  the  evidence
\n       that  one reason for writing off the. sum was not to  enable
\n       Coming  Fashions Ltd., to continue to carry on its  business
\n       as compiler and vendor of I Every woman’s’?”
\n       The cases we have discussed above show that it Is a question
\n       of fact in each case whether the amount which is claimed\t as
\n       a deductible allowance under s. 10(2)(xv)<\/a> of the Income\tTax
\n       Act, was laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose\t of
\n       such business and if the fact-finding tribunal comes to\tthe
\n       conclusion  on evidence which would justify that\t conclusion
\n       it  being  for  them to find the evidence and  to  give\tthe
\n       finding\tthen it will become an admissible  deduction.\tThe
\n       decision\t of such questions is for the Income-tax  Appellate
\n       Tribunal\t and  the decision must be sustained  if  there\t is
\n       evidence upon which the Tribunal could have arrived at  such
\n       a conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
       Another\tfact that emerges from these cases is that  if\tthe
\n       expense\tis incurred for fostering ;the business of  another
\n       only  or was made by way of distribution of profits  or\twas
\n       wholly  gratuitous or for some improper or  oblique  purpose
\n       outside\tthe  course of business then the  -expense  is\tnot
\n       deductible.   In\t deciding whether a payment of money  is  a
\n       deductible  expenditure one has ‘to take into  consideration
\n       questions  of  commercial expediency and the  principles\t of
\n       ordinary commercial trading.  If the payment or expenditure
\n       49<\/span>
\n       is incurred for the purpose of the trade of the assessee\t it
\n       does not matter that the payment may inure to the benefit of
\n       a third party (Usher’s Wiltshire Brewery Ltd. v. Bruce(1) ).
\n       Another test is whether the transaction is properly  entered
\n       into  as\t a  part of the\t assessee’s  legitimate\t commercial
\n       undertaking  in order to facilitate the carrying on  of\tits
\n       business;  and  it  is immaterial that a\t third\tparty  also
\n       benefits\t  thereby   (Eastern  Investments   Ltd.   v.\tThe
\n       Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal<\/a> (2) ). But in  every
\n       case  it is a question of fact whether the  expenditure\twas
\n       expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of trade\t or
\n       business\t of the assessee.  In the present case the  finding
\n       is  that it was laid out for the purpose of  the\t assessee’s
\n       business and there is evidence to support this finding.\tMr.
\n       Palkhivala  referred  in\t this  connection  to  Atherton\t v.
\n       British\tInsulated & Helsby Cables Ltd. (3) where,  at  page
\n       191, Viscount Cave L. C., observed:\n<\/p>\n
       “It  was\t made  clear in the above  cited  cases\t of  Ushers
\n       Wiltshire  Brewery  v. Bruce (1) and Smith  v.  Incorporated
\n       Council\tof Law Reportinq (4) that a sum of money  expended,
\n       not  of necessity and with a view to a direct and  immediate
\n       benefit to the trade, but voluntarily and on the grounds\t of
\n       commercial expediency and in order indirectly to\t facilitate
\n       the  carrying on of the business may yet be expended  wholly
\n       and  exclusively for the purpose of the tradand it  appear’s
\n       to me that the findings of the Commissioners in the  present
\n       case bring the payment in question within that  description.
\n       They  found (in words which I have already quoted) that\tthe
\n       payment\twas  made  for\tthe  sound  commercial\tpurpose\t of
\n       enabling the Company to retain the services of existing\tand
\n       future  members\tof  their  staff  and  of  increasing\tthe
\n       efficiency  of  the  staff  ; and  after\t referring  to\tthe
\n       contention of the Crown that the sum of pound 31,784 was not
\n       money  wholly and exclusively laid out for the  purposes\t of
\n       the trade under the Rule above referred to, they found  that
\n       the deduction was admissible-thus in effect, although
\n       (1) 6 T.C. 399\t\t  (2) [1951] S.C.R. 594
\n       (3) 10 T.C. 155\t\t   (4) 6 T.C. 477
\n       7<\/span>
\n       50<\/span>
\n       not  in terms, negativing the Crown’s contention.   I  think
\n       that there was ample material to support the findings of the
\n       Commissioners,  and accordingly that this  prohibition  does
\n       not apply.”\n<\/p>\n
       Thus  in\t cases\tlike the present one in\t order\tto  justify
\n       deduction the sum must be Riven up for reasons of commercial
\n       expediency;  it\tmay  be voluntary, but so  long\t as  it\t is
\n       incurred\t for the assessee’s benefit the deduction would\t be
\n       claimable.\n<\/p>\n
       The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has found in favour of the
\n       Managing\t Agent that the amount was expended for reasons\t of
\n       commercial  expediency, it was not given as a bounty but\t to
\n       strengthen the Managed Company and if the financial position
\n       of  the\tManaged Company became strong  the  Managing  Agent
\n       would  benefit  thereby.\t That finding is one of\t fact.\t On
\n       that finding the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal rightly  came
\n       to the conclusion that it was a deductible expense under\t s.
\n       10(2)(xv)<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n
       In our opinion the judgment of the High Court was right\tand
\n       we would dismiss this appeal with costs.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    Appeal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India The Commissioner Of … vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960 Equivalent citations: 1960 AIR 738, 1960 SCR (3) 130 Author: P Gajendragadkar Bench: Gajendragadkar, P.B. PETITIONER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,BOMBAY Vs. RESPONDENT: CHANDULAL KESHAVLAL & CO., PETLAD DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17\/02\/1960 BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. BENCH: GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251723","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of ... vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960 - 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-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of ... vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960\" \/>\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=\"1960-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-09T18:46:24+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=\"23 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-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of … vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960\",\"datePublished\":\"1960-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T18:46:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960\"},\"wordCount\":4082,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of ... vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1960-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-09T18:46:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of … vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960\"}]},{\"@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 ... vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960 - 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-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of ... vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1960-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-09T18:46:24+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":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of … vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960","datePublished":"1960-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T18:46:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960"},"wordCount":4082,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960","name":"The Commissioner Of ... vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1960-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-09T18:46:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-vs-chandulal-keshavlal-co-petlad-on-17-february-1960#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of … vs Chandulal Keshavlal & Co., Petlad on 17 February, 1960"}]},{"@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\/251723","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=251723"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251723\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251723"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251723"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251723"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}