{"id":30557,"date":"2002-11-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-11-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002"},"modified":"2015-07-13T16:31:25","modified_gmt":"2015-07-13T11:01:25","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 12\/11\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN\nand\nTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN\n\nT.C.No.55 of 1998\n\nThe Commissioner of Income-tax,\nTamil Nadu I, Madras.                   .... Applicant.\n\n-Vs-\n\nM\/s.Thanjavur Textiles Ltd.,\nMadras.                 ....  Rsepondent.\n\n\n                Reference  arising  out  of  the  order  dated  23.5.1995   in\nI.T.A.No.345\/Mds\/95  on  the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras\nBench-B, at the instance of the Revenue.\n\n!For applicant           ::  Mrs.Pushya Sitharaman, Sr.SC for IT.\n\n^For respondent          ::  Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja.\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN,J.\n<\/p>\n<p>                In  compliance  with  the  directions   of   this   Court   in<br \/>\nT.C.P.No.434  of  1996,  by  order  dated  5.3.1997,  the Income-tax Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal ( hereinafter referred to as &#8216;the Appellate Tribunal&#8217;) has  stated  a<br \/>\ncase and referred the following questions of law for our consideration:\n<\/p>\n<p>1.   Whether  on  the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal<br \/>\nwas  right  in  law  in  upholding  the  assessee&#8217;s  claim  to  the  tune   of<br \/>\nRs.3,01,50,036\/-  towards replacement of several items of machinery as revenue<br \/>\nin nature?\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was<br \/>\nright in its conclusion that the expenditure of Rs.2,78,769\/-  being  cost  of<br \/>\nelectrical  yarn  cleaners  is  to  be  allowed as revenue expenditure and not<br \/>\ntreated as capital expenditure?\n<\/p>\n<p>                2.  The assessment year involved is 1991-92.  The issues  that<br \/>\narise in  both  the  questions  are  the  same.  The assessee claimed a sum of<br \/>\nRs.3,01,50,036\/-  as  revenue  expenditure  on  the  ground  that  it  was   a<br \/>\nreplacement  expenditure  on  several  items  of  machinery  and also a sum of<br \/>\nRs.2,78,769\/- on account of purchase  of  electric  yarn  cleaner  as  revenue<br \/>\nexpenditure.  The Income-tax Officer went into the details of the purchases of<br \/>\nmachinery  and  found  that  the  assessee had purchased the machinery and the<br \/>\nexpenditure incurred were not the current repairs.  He also rejected the claim<br \/>\nof the assessee to treat the same as revenue expenditure.  On appeal preferred<br \/>\nby the assessee, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upholding the orders<br \/>\nof the Incometax Officer, held that the expenditure incurred  was  capital  in<br \/>\nnature.   The Appellate Tribunal, on further appeal by the assessee, following<br \/>\nits earlier order  in  I.T.A.No.664  (Mds)\/94  dated  17.2.1995,  allowed  the<br \/>\nassessee&#8217;s claim  as  revenue  expenditure.    The  Appellate  Tribunal  also,<br \/>\nfollowing its earlier order, cited supra, allowed the assessee&#8217;s  claim  of  a<br \/>\nsum of  Rs.2,78,769\/- as revenue expenditure.  It is, against the order of the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal, the Revenue sought  for  a  reference  and  the  Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal,  on  the  directions  of  this  Court, referred the questions of law<br \/>\nmentioned above.\n<\/p>\n<p>                3.  We heard Mrs.Pushya Sitharaman,  learned  senior  standing<br \/>\ncounsel  for  the Revenue and Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja,learned counsel for the<br \/>\nassessee.  We find that the Appellate Tribunal has committed a grave error  in<br \/>\nfollowing its  earlier  order.    The  earlier  of  the  Appellate Tribunal in<br \/>\nITA.No.664 (Mds)\/94 dated 17.2.1995 relates to the claim of  the  assessee  on<br \/>\nthe  repairs  of  certain  machinery  in  question, whereas the finding of the<br \/>\nIncome-tax Officer in the present case was that there were no repairs, but the<br \/>\nassessee purchased certain items of new machinery and  therefore,  that  would<br \/>\nconstitute capital  expenditure.    As  far  as  the  question  of purchase of<br \/>\nelectric  yarn  cleaner  is  concerned,  the  Appellate  Tribunal,  no  doubt,<br \/>\nproceeded  on  the  basis  that  it  was  a purchase of machinery, but however<br \/>\nallowed the claim of the assessee as revenue expenditure on  the  ground  that<br \/>\nfor the earlier years, the same issue was considered by the Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\nand  it  was held to be a revenue expenditure as it was for the replacement of<br \/>\nexisting worn out parts and therefore, the  purchase  of  machinery  would  be<br \/>\nrevenue in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>                4.   We are of the view that the Appellate Tribunal has failed<br \/>\nto consider the question whether the assessee has purchased the new  machinery<br \/>\nor  whether  only  certain  items  of  machinery were purchased to replace the<br \/>\nexisting machinery or to replace a  part  of  the  existing  machinery.    The<br \/>\nAppellate  Tribunal should have considered the question with reference to each<br \/>\nitem of machinery and  decided  the  question  whether  the  purchase  of  the<br \/>\nmachinery  was  capital  expenditure  or  revenue  expenditure and whether the<br \/>\npurchase of machinery  was  for  replacement  of  existing  machinery  or  for<br \/>\nreplacement of a part of an existing machine.\n<\/p>\n<p>                5.   Learned  senior standing counsel for the Revenue referred<br \/>\nto the decision of this Court in C.I.T.  v.  SRI HARI MILLS PVT.  LTD.    (237<br \/>\nITR  188)  and  submitted  that  this  Court  has held that the expenditure on<br \/>\nreplacement of worn out parts of machinery could not be treated as  a  capital<br \/>\nexpenditure.   She  submitted that when the machinery was replaced wholly or a<br \/>\nnew machinery was added, this Court in the same case has held  that  it  would<br \/>\nconstitute a  capital  expenditure.  Learned senior standing counsel submitted<br \/>\nthat in the case of Sri Hari Mills Pvt.  Ltd., the expenditure was incurred on<br \/>\nrepairs by way of renewal or replacement of worn out parts of the  machi  nery<br \/>\nand  therefore  the said decision has no application to the facts of the case.<br \/>\nLearned senior standing counsel also referred to the decisions (i) C.I.T.   v.<br \/>\nOOTY DASAPRAKASH (237  ITR  902), (ii) C.I.T.  v.  SREE NARASIMHA TEXTILES (P)<br \/>\nLTD.  (238 ITR 351), (iii) BALLIMAL NAVAL KISHORE v.  C.I.T.  (224  ITR  414),\n<\/p>\n<p>(iv) C.I.T.   v.  MALHOTRA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION (254 ITR 635) and (v) C.I.T.<br \/>\nv.  TUTICORIN SPINNING MILLS LTD.  (249 ITR 694) and  submitted  that  in  the<br \/>\nabove  decisions  it was held that the expenditure incurred in replacing parts<br \/>\nof machinery would not be regarded as capital expenditure.  According  to  the<br \/>\nlearned senior  standing  counsel, in Tuticorin Spinning Mills Ltd.  case (249<br \/>\nITR 694) certain worn out parts of ring frames were  replaced  and  therefore,<br \/>\nthis Court  held  that  it  would  constitute current repairs.  Learned senior<br \/>\nstanding counsel also referred to the decision of this Court  in  C.I.T.    v.<br \/>\nMADRAS CEMENTS  LTD.    (255  ITR  243)  wherein this Court held that &#8216;repair&#8217;<br \/>\nimplies the existence of a thing which has malfunctioned and can be set  right<br \/>\nby  effecting  repairs  which  may  involve replacement of some parts, thereby<br \/>\nmaking the thing as efficient as it was before or as close to it  as  possible<br \/>\nand  &#8216;replacement&#8217;  implies the removal or discarding of the thing that was in<br \/>\nuse, by a different or new thing capable of performing the same function  with<br \/>\nthe same or greater efficiency.  Learned senior standing counsel also referred<br \/>\nto the decision of this Court in C.I.T.  v.  THANJAVUR TEXTILES LTD.  (253 ITR\n<\/p>\n<p>138)  and  submitted that in the assessee&#8217;s own case for an earlier assessment<br \/>\nyear, there was replacement of  worn  out  parts  of  machinery  and  in  that<br \/>\nsituation,  this  Court  held  that  it  would constitute revenue expenditure.<br \/>\nLearned senior standing counsel for the Revenue submitted that the decision of<br \/>\nthis Court rendered in the assessee&#8217;s own case reported in 2 53 ITR 138 has no<br \/>\napplication to the facts of  the  case  as  the  assessee  has  purchased  new<br \/>\nmachinery.   She also referred to the report of the Board of Directors and the<br \/>\norder of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to show that the expenditure<br \/>\nwas capital in nature.  Learned senior standing counsel also referred  to  the<br \/>\ndecision of the  Delhi  High  Court  in  C.I.T.  v.  VOLGA RESTAURANT (253 ITR\n<\/p>\n<p>405), the decision of the Supreme Court in C.I.T.  v.  KALYANJI  MAVJI  &amp;  CO.<br \/>\n(122  ITR  49) and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.I.T.<br \/>\nv.  INDIAN WOOLLEN TEXTILE MILLS P.  LTD.  (122 ITR 441).\n<\/p>\n<p>                6.  Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana Raja, learned  counsel  appearing  for<br \/>\nthe  assessee,  on  the  other hand, relied upon the decision of this Court in<br \/>\nC.I.T.  v.  SALEM CO-OP.  SPINNING MILLS LTD.   (148  ITR  176)  wherein  this<br \/>\nCourt  held  that  the expenditure incurred in the replacement of conventional<br \/>\ncard  clothing  by  metallic  card  clothing  in  the  carding  section  would<br \/>\nconstitute revenue  expenditure.    Learned  counsel for the assessee strongly<br \/>\nplaced reliance on the decision of  the  Kerala  High  Court  in  C.I.T.    v.<br \/>\nCO-OPERATIVE SUGARS  LTD.   (235 ITR 343) and submitted that the manufacturing<br \/>\nunits should be taken as one unit and if  there  is  any  replacement  of  any<br \/>\nmachinery   in   the   manufacturing  unit,  it  would  constitute  a  revenue<br \/>\nexpenditure.  Learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Kerala High<br \/>\nCourt in C.I.T.  v.MADRAS SPINNERS LTD.  (207 ITR 35).\n<\/p>\n<p>                7.  Learned senior standing counsel for the  Revenue,  in  her<br \/>\nreply, relied upon  the  decision  of this Court in C.I.T.  v.  MADRAS CEMENTS<br \/>\nLTD.  (255 ITR 243) and submitted that this Court has not agreed with the view<br \/>\nexpressed by the Kerala High Court in Co-operative Sugars Ltd.  case (235  ITR\n<\/p>\n<p>343)  and  this Court has specifically rejected the contention that the entire<br \/>\nmanufacturing facility from the stage of processing of  raw  material  to  the<br \/>\ndelivery of the final finished product should be taken as one unit.\n<\/p>\n<p>                8.    No  doubt,  Mr.P.P.S.Janarthana  Raja,  learned  counsel<br \/>\nsubmitted that the decision of this Court in Madras Cements Ltd.    case  (255<br \/>\nITR  2  43)  was  rendered  while  considering the question of allowability of<br \/>\ncertain expenditure claimed on current repairs.  However, we are of  the  view<br \/>\nthat  it  is not necessary to discuss the various decisions relied upon by the<br \/>\nlearned senior standing counsel for the Revenue and the  learned  counsel  for<br \/>\nthe assessee.    We  are  of the view that the Appellate Tribunal should first<br \/>\nconsider the factual question whether the assessee has replaced parts  of  the<br \/>\nexisting machinery or whether the assessee has replaced the existing machinery<br \/>\nor  whether  the  assessee  has  purchased  new machinery, and then decide the<br \/>\nquestion whether the expenditure would involve current repairs or whether  the<br \/>\nexpenditure  is  allowable  as revenue expenditure or not allowable as capital<br \/>\nexpenditure.  Since the Appellate Tribunal has not decided the factual matter,<br \/>\nbut followed its earlier order which dealt with the case of repairs, we are of<br \/>\nthe view that this case should be remitted back  to  the  Appellate  Tribunal.<br \/>\nLearned  counsel for the assessee, in his fairness, has not seriously disputed<br \/>\nthe said position.\n<\/p>\n<p>                9.  Accordingly, we remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\nand the Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider and decide  the  issues  de<br \/>\nnovo.   In the view we have taken, we are not answering the questions referred<br \/>\nto us and we direct the  Appellate  Tribunal  to  consider  the  questions  in<br \/>\naccordance with law.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:  Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:  Yes<br \/>\nna.\n<\/p>\n<p>To\n<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Assistant Registrar,<br \/>\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal,<br \/>\nRajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar,<br \/>\nChennai 600 090 (five copies with records)<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Secretary,<br \/>\nCentral Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi (3 copies)<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu-I,<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.  The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals-V),<br \/>\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,<br \/>\nSpecial Range I,<br \/>\nMadras.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 12\/11\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN T.C.No.55 of 1998 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Tamil Nadu I, Madras. &#8230;. Applicant. -Vs- M\/s.Thanjavur Textiles Ltd., Madras. &#8230;. Rsepondent. Reference [&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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30557","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002 - 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-13T11:01:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-13T11:01:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1706,\"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-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-11-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-13T11:01:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002 - 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-13T11:01:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002","datePublished":"2002-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-13T11:01:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002"},"wordCount":1706,"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-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002","name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-11-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-13T11:01:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-for-on-12-november-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs ^For on 12 November, 2002"}]},{"@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\/30557","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=30557"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30557\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30557"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30557"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30557"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}