{"id":267659,"date":"2000-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000"},"modified":"2019-02-07T12:48:13","modified_gmt":"2019-02-07T07:18:13","slug":"k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000","title":{"rendered":"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 30 November, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 30 November, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.P. Bharucha, Doraiswamy Raju, Ruma Pal<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4475-4476 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nK. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nS.P. BHARUCHA &amp; DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; RUMA PAL\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2000 Supp(5) SCR 244<\/p>\n<p>The Judgment of the Court was delivered by<\/p>\n<p>BHARUCHA, J. We are concerned in these appeals from a decision of Division<br \/>\nBench of the High Court of Kerala, with the Assessment Year 1972-73, the<br \/>\nprevious year of which ended for the assessee on 30th September, 1971. The<br \/>\nquestion that was referred to the High Court and which it answered in the<br \/>\nnegative and against the assessee reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">&#8220;Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is<br \/>\nentitled to claim deduction of Rs. 4,18,107 under <a href=\"\/doc\/789969\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 37<\/a> of the Income-<br \/>\ntax Act?&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">The assessee, an individual, carried on the business of processing cashew<br \/>\nnuts in ten units. Four of these units were situated in Kerala. Of these<br \/>\nfour units, two were owned by the assessee and two were taken on lease. In<br \/>\nOctober, 1969, the assessee faced labour problems in Kerala, consequent<br \/>\nupon which he ordered a lock-out of the four units there. On 9th March,<br \/>\n1970, the assessee leased out the two units which he owned in Kerala to a<br \/>\nprivate limited company whose only two shareholders were the assessee and<br \/>\nhis wife. The agreement in this behalf provided that the workmen employed<br \/>\nin the two units would have continuity of service. At about the same time<br \/>\nthe lessee surrendered the two units in Kerala which he had taken on lease.<br \/>\nOn 21st November, 1970, the assessee entered into a settlement with the<br \/>\ntrade unions representing the workmen of the units in Kerala and agreed to<br \/>\npay them for the periods of their service upto the date of the lock-out<br \/>\nfive days&#8217; wages for each year of service. An aggregate payment of Rs.<br \/>\n4,18,107 was made in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">The payment having been made in the course of the previous year relevant to<br \/>\nthe Assessment Year 1972-73, the assessee made a claim for the deduction of<br \/>\nthe said sum of Rs. 4,18,107 under <a href=\"\/doc\/789969\/\" id=\"a_1\">Section 37<\/a> of the Income Tax Act, 1961.<br \/>\nThe Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim. In appeal, the claim was<br \/>\nallowed. The Tribunal upheld the decision in appeal. From out of the order<br \/>\nof the Tribunal, the question afore-stated was referred to the High Court.<br \/>\nThe High Court, by the judgment and order under appeal, answered the<br \/>\nquestion against the assessee. The assessee is here by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">It needs to be noted that the Revenue had sought the reference of six<br \/>\nquestions. The Tribunal had disallowed its application insofar as it<br \/>\nrelated to five questions on the basis that the one issue, that was covered<br \/>\nby the question quoted above, had been split up into six questions. The<br \/>\nRevenue did not file an application before the High Court under <a href=\"\/doc\/1979131\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section<br \/>\n256(2)<\/a> seeking the reference of the rejected five questions. It is<br \/>\nnecessary to make a point of this because none of the six questions<br \/>\nproceeded upon the basis that the Revenue considered the decision of the<br \/>\nTribunal on facts to be perverse; in other words, that it could not<br \/>\nreasonably have been arrived at on the materials placed before the<br \/>\nTribunal. Alternatively, assuming that one or more of the questions did<br \/>\nproceed upon that basis, the Revenue accepted the fact that they were not<br \/>\nreferred and did not carry the matter to the High Court. There was,<br \/>\ntherefore, no challenge by the Revenue to the facts found by the Tribunal<br \/>\nbefore the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">As we read the judgment of the Tribunal, it extensively analysed the<br \/>\ndocuments placed before it and came to the conclusion that the ten units<br \/>\nrun by the assessee constituted a single business, that the four units in<br \/>\nKerala did not constitute a separate business and that, therefore, the<br \/>\npayment that was made was not on account of closure of business, which<br \/>\nwould not be allowable under <a href=\"\/doc\/789969\/\" id=\"a_3\">Section 37<\/a>. The Tribunal found, on the basis<br \/>\nof the accounts placed before it, that only one set of accounts were<br \/>\nmaintained for all the ten units. It found that there was one central<br \/>\nfinancing system, that all the units were financed by banks and that these<br \/>\naccounts were operated from the head office and that the cashew was<br \/>\npurchased for processing by the head office for all the units together. It<br \/>\nwas also found that there was unity of management and control. Accordingly,<br \/>\nthe Tribunal said that it was satisfied that all the units were fully<br \/>\ninter-linked and inter-laced so that the inevitable inference was that all<br \/>\nthese units were one business alone. The Tribunal went on to hold that the<br \/>\nfacts were sufficient to establish a nexus between the payment of Rs.<br \/>\n4,18,107 and the business. Because a part of the business had been affected<br \/>\nby labour disputes, for the industrial health of the business as a whole,<br \/>\nit was thought just and necessary that the industrial dispute in that one<br \/>\npart of the business be stopped. This was the purpose for which the payment<br \/>\nwas made and it was, therefore, incurred for the purpose of the business.<br \/>\nThe Tribunal noted, correctly, that it was for the assessee to decide how<br \/>\nhe would conduct his business. For the purposes of continuing his business,<br \/>\nhe had to reduce the number of units from ten to six. Any incidental<br \/>\nexpense in reducing those units was an expenditure incurred in the course<br \/>\nof conducting the business and allowable under <a href=\"\/doc\/789969\/\" id=\"a_4\">Section 37<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">The High Court, surprisingly, threw out all the findings of fact that were<br \/>\nreached by the Tribunal. It did so because, in the High Court&#8217;s view, the<br \/>\nTribunal had misdirected itself in law in arriving at these findings. This<br \/>\nwas because, according to the High Court, the Tribunal had overlooked or<br \/>\nignored a clinching document and because it had wrongly cast the burden of<br \/>\nproving the facts on a party. It is difficult to appreciate what that<br \/>\ndocument was that the Tribunal had supposedly overlooked or how the High<br \/>\nCourt was entitled to look at it if it had not been placed before the<br \/>\nTribunal. It was erroneous to say that any burden had been incorrectly cast<br \/>\nby the Tribunal because the Tribunal had evaluated all the material that<br \/>\nwas put before it, regardless of who had put it on the record.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">The High Court overlooked the cardinal principle that it is the Tribunal<br \/>\nwhich is the final fact finding authority. A decision on fact of the<br \/>\nTribunal can be gone into by the High Court only if a question has been<br \/>\nreferred to it which says that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is<br \/>\nperverse, in the sense that it is such as could not reasonably have been<br \/>\narrived at on the material placed before the Tribunal. In this case, there<br \/>\nwas no such question before the High Court. Unless and until a finding of<br \/>\nfact reached by the Tribunal is canvassed before the High Court in the<br \/>\nmanner set out above, the High Court is obliged to proceed upon the<br \/>\nfindings of fact reached by the Tribunal and to give an answer in law to<br \/>\nthe question of law that is before it.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">The only jurisdiction of the High Court in a reference application is to<br \/>\nanswer the questions of law that are placed before it. It is only when a<br \/>\nfinding of the Tribunal on fact is challenged as being perverse, in the<br \/>\nsense set out above, that a question of law can be said to arise.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">The only argument, fairly, that has been raised before us by the Revenue is<br \/>\nthat this expenditure could not be said to have been incurred in the course<br \/>\nof the business because the four Kerala units in respect of which the<br \/>\nexpenditure was incurred had been shut down by the assessee. This argument<br \/>\nwould be acceptable if the Tribunal had found that these four units<br \/>\nconstituted a separate business. Having regard to the finding that these<br \/>\nand all the other units outside Kerala formed one business, the expenditure<br \/>\nmust be held to have been incurred in regard to such business.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">Upon the facts found by the Tribunal, there is no getting away from the<br \/>\nfact that the expenditure of Rs. 4,18,107 that was incurred by the assessee<br \/>\nwas a business expenditure and that the assessee was entitled to its<br \/>\ndeduction under <a href=\"\/doc\/789969\/\" id=\"a_5\">Section 37<\/a>.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">In the result, the civil appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment and<br \/>\norder is set aside. The question is answered in the affirmative and in<br \/>\nfavour of the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 30 November, 2000 Bench: S.P. Bharucha, Doraiswamy Raju, Ruma Pal CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4475-4476 of 1998 PETITIONER: K. RAVINDRANATHAN NAIR RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ERNAKULAM DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2000 BENCH: S.P. BHARUCHA &amp; DORAISWAMY RAJU &amp; RUMA PAL JUDGMENT: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-267659","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-02-07T07:18:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 30 November, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T07:18:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1429,\"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\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000\",\"name\":\"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-02-07T07:18:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 30 November, 2000\"}]},{\"@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":"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-02-07T07:18:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 30 November, 2000","datePublished":"2000-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T07:18:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000"},"wordCount":1429,"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\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000","name":"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 30 November, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-02-07T07:18:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-ravindranathan-nair-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-30-november-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Ravindranathan Nair vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; on 30 November, 2000"}]},{"@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\/267659","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=267659"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267659\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267659"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267659"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267659"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}