{"id":260714,"date":"2004-10-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-10-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004"},"modified":"2015-03-05T03:40:33","modified_gmt":"2015-03-04T22:10:33","slug":"the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004","title":{"rendered":"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 07\/10\/2004\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN\n\nand\n\nTHE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU\n\n\nTax Case (Appeals) No.31 of 2000\nand\nTax Case (Appeals) No.44 of 2000\nand\nTax Case (Appeals) No.45 of 2000\n\nThe Assistant Commissioner\n        of Income-tax,\nCentral Circle III (3),\nChennai 34.                             Appellant in all the\n                                        Tax Case Appeals\n\n-vs-\n\n\nC.Subba Reddy (Individual\/HUF)         Respondent in TC (A)\n                                        No.31 & 45 of 2000\n\nRajini Reddy                                            Respondent in TC(A)\n                                                        No.44 of 2000\n\n\n        Tax Case Appeals  preferred  against  the  order  of  the  Income  Tax\nAppellate Tribunal, Madras 'A' Bench, in I.T.  (SS) A.No.59 to 61\/MDS\/97 dated\n26.05.1999\n\n!For Revenue    :       Mrs.  Pushya Sitaraman,\n                        Sr.  Standing Counsel for IT Dept.\n\n^For Assessees  :       Mr.Philip George\n                        Mr.M.P.S.Senthil Kumar\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
(Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby P.D.DINAKARAN, J.)<\/p>\n
        The revenue is the appellant in all these appeals which were preferred
\nagainst  the  order  of  the  Income  Tax Appellate Tribunal dated 26.05 .1999
\nallowing the appeals preferred by the respondents-assessees  in  each  of  the
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  In precise, the facts of the case is that the respondentsassessees
\nare  shareholders  of Kencess Enclave Project, which commenced its business in
\nthe year 1992 and was engaged in the business of construction and  selling  of
\nresidential and  commercial  buildings.    K.Narasa  Reddy  designated  as the
\nManaging Director of the assessee company held 5 0%  of  the  shares  and  the
\nremaining  50% of the shares was shared by Subba Reddy (Individual) designated
\nas the Director of the Company, Subba Reddy (HUF) and Rajini  Reddy,  wife  of
\nSubba Reddy.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   There  was a search under Section 132<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961<\/p>\n
on 23.02.1996 in the premises of the  Kences  Enclave  Project  in  which  the
\nrespondents\/assessees were  holding  100,900  shares.    In  the course of the
\nsearch the following documents were ed:\n<\/p>\n
i.statement  of  accounts  prepared  by  one  V.C.Gupta,  Executive   Director
\n(Finance)  of  the  company,  relating  to  the  settlement of accounts to the
\noutgoing Director Subba Reddy and his group;
\nii.  work Sheet prepared by Chartered Accountants Giri  and  Prabhakar,  which
\nwas  taken  into  consideration  for  settling  the  accounts  of the outgoing
\nDirector Subba Reddy and his Group,
\niii.  paper showing negotiation with buyers for purchase of flats.\n<\/p>\n
                4.1.  As  per  the  statement  of  accounts  prepared  by  the
\nExecutive  Director  (Finance)  and  the  work-sheet prepared by the Chartered
\nAccountant of the Company for the purpose  of  settling  of  accounts  of  the
\nrespondents-assessees  who  intended  to  retire  from  the  Company, a sum of
\nRs.3,40,00,000\/- were settled to them.\n<\/p>\n
                4.2.   Out  of  Rs.3,40,00,000\/-  the  department  took   into
\nconsideration  a  total  sum  of  Rs.1,84,64,700\/-  towards  the shares of the
\nrespective assessees at the rate of Rs.183 per share as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Name of the shareholder
\nNo.  of shares held
\nSale consideration received @ 183 per share
\nDate of payment
\nAmount paid
\nSubba Reddy (Indl)
\n20900
\nRs.38,24,700\/-\n<\/p>\n
12\/9\/1995
\nRs.  38,24,700\/-\n<\/p>\n
Subba Reddy (HUF)
\n40000
\nRs.73,20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
18\/9\/1995
\n22\/9\/1995
\nRs.  47,58,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Rs.  25,62,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Rajini Reddy
\n40000
\nRs.73,20,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
22\/9\/1995
\n29\/9\/1995
\nRs.  29,28,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Rs.  43,92,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total
\n100900
\nRs.1,84,64,700\/<\/p>\n
Rs.1,84,64,700\/-\n<\/p>\n
                4.3.   The  balance  of   Rs.160.00   lakhs   (approximately),
\naccording to the revenue, was apportioned as follows :\n<\/p>\n
i.construction  advance  of  Rs.120  lakhs  paid  by  the  said company to the
\nrespondents-assessees for purchase of  building  space  in  Alexander  Square,
\nconstructed  by  the  assessees (Subba Reddy and Group) was included as amount
\npaid for settlement of the value of shares held by the assessees towards their
\nretirement from the company and was treated as undisclosed income; and
\nii.  since the respondents-assessees, concededly purchased 14500 sq.    ft  in
\nKences   Enclave   for  a  sum  of  Rs.1,88,44,146\/-  as  against  the  actual
\nconsideration of Rs.2,30,00,000\/-, the difference of Rs.40 lakhs  was  treated
\nas an undisclosed income.\n<\/p>\n
                4.4.   The respondents-assessees in their objections explained
\nthat assuming that the  assessees  accepted  the  materials  seized  from  the
\npremises  of  Kences Enclave Foundation, to be correct, there was no reason to
\ndisbelieve the case of the respondents that  the  advance  of  Rs.1  20  lakhs
\nreceived  by  them  for  the  sale of commercial space at Alexander Square was
\nreturned to the said company by way of cheques and therefore the  said  amount
\nshould  not be treated as amount paid to the respondents-assessees towards the
\nsettlement of accounts of the share for the retirement  as  shareholders  from
\nthe said company.\n<\/p>\n
        4.5  The  further  case  of  the  respondents-assessees  was  that the
\nconcession availed by the respondents\/assessees for the purchase of 14500  sq.
\nft.   in  Kences  Enclave  for  a  sum of Rs.188.00 lakhs as against Rs.230.00
\nlakhs, the actual value to be paid, in view of the down payment  made  by  the
\nrespondents-assessees  and  the said concession of Rs.40.00 lakhs which worked
\nout to the tune of 17.5% is permissible in the real estate business in  normal
\npractice.\n<\/p>\n
        5.1  That  apart, the revenue also treated a further sum of Rs.10,16,6
\n40\/- as undisclosed income which is claimed to be the difference in  the  cost
\nof construction between valuation report of the department valuer with respect
\nto the  properties at Nos.9, 10, 11, Venkatraman Street, T.  Nagar, Chennai 17
\nand the cost of construction debited in the books of  accounts  maintained  by
\nthe assessee, as per the details given below:\n<\/p>\n
Estimate of probable cost of
\nconstruction by District Valuation
\nOfficer as per the Valuation Report             Rs.93,22,140\/-<\/p>\n
\n\nCost of construction as debited\nin Books of accounts                                    Rs.83,05,500\/-\n\n\n--------------\nDifference treated as Undisclosed Income        Rs.10,16,640\/-\n\n--------------\n\n<\/pre>\n
        5.2  According  to  the  assessee  as between the cost of construction
\narrived at as per the books maintained by the assessee and the estimated value
\narrived at based  on  the  report  of  the  valuation  officer,  the  cost  of
\nconstruction as per the books of accounts has to be preferred, unless there is
\nmaterial  evidence  to  disbelieve the same, inasmuch as the books of accounts
\nmaintained by the assessee were not rejected by the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
        6.1 A further sum of Rs.1,05,990\/- and Rs.1,91,671\/- were also treated
\nas undisclosed income in the case of the respondents Rajini  Reddy  and  Subba
\nReddy  HUF  towards  the  assessment  years  1994-95 to 1996-97 and 1992-93 to
\n1996-97, as they failed to satisfy the source for the same  even  though  they
\nclaimed the said income as agricultural income.\n<\/p>\n
        6.2  The  case  of  the  assessees before the Tribunal was that Rajini
\nReddy and Subba Reddy HUF claim the said amounts as agricultural income during
\nthe respective assessment years, for having raised sugar  cane  as  the  major
\ncrop paddy and other minor produce at Yellapalayam village at Andhra Pradesh.\n<\/p>\n
        6.3  The Assessment Officer, however, gave credit to 50% of the amount
\nreceived by way of cheques from the sugar mills for the supply of  sugar  cane
\nand  treated  the  same  as agricultural income and treated the balance as non
\nagricultural income and held the same as undisclosed income by an order  dated
\n27.02.1997.\n<\/p>\n
        7.   Since the Assessing Officer by his order dated 27.02.1997 refused
\nto accept the case of the assessees as narrated above and finally held against
\nthe assessees, the assessees preferred  appeals  before  the  Tribunal,  which
\nappreciated  the  contentions  of  the  respondents assessees, and by an order
\ndated 26.05.1999 allowed the appeals giving cause of action to the revenue  to
\nprefer these  Tax  Case  Appeals.    The  substantial  questions  of law to be
\nconsidered in these appeals are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        i) whether on the facts and in the  circumstances  of  the  case,  the
\nAppellate  Tribunal  is  right  in deleting the addition of undisclosed income
\nwith reference to the advance received  by  the  assessees  for  the  sale  of
\ncommercial  space  at  Alexander  Square  and  the  concession  availed by the
\nassessees in respect of the purchase of commercial plots at Kences Enclave?;\n<\/p>\n
        ii) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the  Appellate
\nTribunal  is  justified  in  deleting  the  estimated  undisclosed income with
\nrespect to the difference in cost of construction between the valuation report
\nof the Department valuation officer and that of the cost  of  construction  as
\ndebited in books of accounts of the assessee?; and\n<\/p>\n
        iii)whether  on  the  facts  and  in the circumstances of the case the
\nAppellate Tribunal is justified in restricting the disallowance in respect  of
\nthe credits in the capital account from 50% to 25% and to delete the income of
\nnon agricultural nature?\n<\/p>\n
        8.1.  Question No.1 :\n<\/p>\n
whether  on  the  facts  and  in  the circumstances of the case, the Appellate
\nTribunal is  right  in  deleting  the  addition  of  undisclosed  income  with
\nreference  to the advance received by the assessees for the sale of commercial
\nspace at Alexander Square and the  concession  availed  by  the  assessees  in
\nrespect of the purchase of commercial plots at Kences Enclave?;\n<\/p>\n
        8.2.   The  assesses  do  not  dispute  the  fact as to the receipt of
\nadvance for the sale of commercial space at Alexander  Square  constructed  by
\nthem, which reads as follows:\n<\/p>\n
Date of payment
\nAmount paid
\n12\/9\/1995
\nRs.  38,24,700\/-\n<\/p>\n
18\/9\/1995
\n22\/9\/1995
\nRs.  47,58,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Rs.  25,62,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
22\/9\/1995
\n29\/9\/1995
\nRs.  29,28,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Rs.  43,92,000\/-\n<\/p>\n
Total
\nRs.1,84,64,700\/-\n<\/p>\n
Even  though  the  receipt  of  advance  for  the  sale of commercial space at
\nAlexander Square is not  disputed,  there  are  materials  to  show  that  the
\nassessees  refunded  a  sum  of  Rs.60 lakhs before the date of search and the
\nbalance of Rs.120 lakhs have been repaid by way of cheques on different  dates
\nafter the   date   of  search.    Similarly,  the  assessees  paid  a  sum  of
\nRs.1,88,44,146\/- as a down payment for purchase of 14,500 sq.ft.    in  Kences
\nEnclave as against the actual value of Rs.2.30 crores by availing a concession
\nof  Rs.40  lakhs,  which  works  out  to 17.5% of the market value, which is a
\ncommon practice  in  the  real  estate  business,  which  has  been  correctly
\nappreciated by  the  Tribunal.   Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere
\nwith the findings of the Tribunal in this regard.\n<\/p>\n
        8.3.  Question No.2:\n<\/p>\n
        ii) whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the  Appellate
\nTribunal  is  justified  in  deleting  the  estimated  undisclosed income with
\nrespect to the difference in cost of construction between the valuation report
\nof the Department valuation officer and that of the cost  of  construction  as
\ndebited in books of accounts of the assessee?\n<\/p>\n
        8.4.   The  Tribunal  while  deleting  the  addition of Rs.10,16,640\/-
\nrefused to act on the  basis  of  the  report  of  the  Department  Valuer  by
\naccepting  the  cost  of  construction based on the accounts maintained by the
\nassessees.\n<\/p>\n
        8.5.  It is a settled law that when the credibility of  the  books  of
\naccounts  maintained  by the respondents\/assessees is not doubted, the revenue
\nshould not be carried away merely on the report of  the  Department  Valuation
\nOfficer, as  held  in  the  case  of K.K.Seshaiyar vs.  CIT<\/a>, 246 ITR 351, by a
\nDivision Bench of the Madras High Court.\n<\/p>\n
        8.6.  When  there  is  neither  doubt  about  the  books  of  accounts
\nmaintained  by  the  assessees nor there was rejection of the same document by
\nthe revenue, the Court should not interfere by substituting its  own  estimate
\nin  place  of  the one of the Tribunal unless it is shown that the estimate of
\nthe Tribunal could not p ossibly be reached, as held by a  Division  Bench  of
\nthe Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ved Prakash vs.  CIT<\/a>, 265 itr\n<\/p>\n
642.   Therefore,  we  are  of  the  considered  opinion  that the Tribunal is
\njustified in deleting the addition  of  Rs.10,16,640\/-  and  the  question  is
\nanswered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.\n<\/p>\n
        8.7.  Question No.3:\n<\/p>\n
“Whether  on  the  facts  and  in  the circumstances of the case the Appellate
\nTribunal is justified in  restricting  the  disallowance  in  respect  of  the
\ncredits in the capital account from 50% to 25% and to delete the income of non
\nagricultural nature?”\n<\/p>\n
        8.8.  With regard to the agricultural income, while refusing to accept
\nthe  case  of  the  respondents-assessees,  the  revenue took into account the
\ncheques received from the sugar factory for the sale of sugar cane  raised  in
\nthe  lands in Yellapalayam village in Andhra Pradesh ignoring the receipts for
\nthe sale of minor produce.\n<\/p>\n
        8.9.  In agricultural transactions  cash  payments  and  receipts  are
\npermissible.  There are materials to show that the assessees are holding lands
\nin  which  sugar  canes  are  raised and supplied to the sugar industries, for
\nwhich payments were made by them to the assessees by  cheques.    Hence,  this
\nquestion is decided in favour of the asseessees and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
        9.   Since  all  the  questions  raised  in these appeals are answered
\nagainst the revenue  and  in  favour  of  the  assessees,  these  appeals  are
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nWeb   :  Yes
\nmf<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 07\/10\/2004 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.R.SINGHARAVELU Tax Case (Appeals) No.31 of 2000 and Tax Case (Appeals) No.44 of 2000 and Tax Case (Appeals) No.45 of […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-260714","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004 - 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-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004\" \/>\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=\"2004-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-03-04T22:10:33+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=\"10 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-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-04T22:10:33+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004\"},\"wordCount\":1905,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004\",\"name\":\"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-10-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-03-04T22:10:33+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004\"}]},{\"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"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 Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004 - 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-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-03-04T22:10:33+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004","datePublished":"2004-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-04T22:10:33+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004"},"wordCount":1905,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004","name":"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-10-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-03-04T22:10:33+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-assistant-commissioner-vs-c-subba-reddy-individualhuf-on-7-october-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Assistant Commissioner vs C.Subba Reddy (Individual\/Huf) on 7 October, 2004"}]},{"@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:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","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\/260714","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=260714"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/260714\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=260714"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=260714"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=260714"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}