{"id":35994,"date":"2010-06-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-13T00:37:47","modified_gmt":"2017-05-12T19:07:47","slug":"sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C).No. 3589 of 2010(W)\n\n\n1. SRI.P.M.SATHYAN,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV),\n\n3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX\n\n4. THE ADDL.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX\n\n5. THE ASST.DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX\n\n6. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,\n\n7. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON\n\n Dated :03\/06\/2010\n\n O R D E R\n                 P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J\n                   --------------------------------------------\n                     WP(C) NO. 3589 OF 2010\n                   --------------------------------------------\n              Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2010\n\n                               JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      The petitioner is running a jewelery business in the name and style<\/p>\n
‘Aiswarya Jewel Crafts’, stated as engaged in purchasing old gold items,<\/p>\n
remaking and distributing it to various parties, besides exporting the same.<\/p>\n
The petitioner is having two residential buildings at Cherpu in Thrissur<\/p>\n
District. Besides the business premises situated therein, there is also<\/p>\n
another business premise in Chennai.\n<\/p>\n
      2.     While so, a search was conducted under Section 132 of the<\/p>\n
Income Tax Act, 1961 on 23.7.2009 at the two residential premises as well<\/p>\n
as the business premises of the petitioner at Cherpu and similar search<\/p>\n
was conducted on 31.7.2009 in the business premises in Chennai. There<\/p>\n
was no seizure of any material from the business premises in Chennai, as<\/p>\n
well as from the residential premises in Cherpu. However, in the course of<\/p>\n
the search conducted in the other residential buildings situated in Cherpu,<\/p>\n
5393.610 grams of gold was seized consisting of 449 long chains. The<\/p>\n
proceedings in this regard are discernible from Exts.P1 to P4 mahazars,<\/p>\n
among which, Ext.P3 relates to seizure of gold items from the above<\/p>\n
residential premises.\n<\/p>\n
      3.     In connection with the seizure of the articles, Exts.P5 to P7<\/p>\n
                                      2<\/span>
\nWP(C) No. 3589\/2010<\/p>\n
sworn statements were taken on the very same date of seizure, while<\/p>\n
Exts.P8 to P10 sworn statements were taken on the subsequent dates.<\/p>\n
Thereafter the petitioner filed Ext.P11 representation before the fourth<\/p>\n
respondent seeking to release the gold articles seized. The petitioner filed<\/p>\n
a petition under the 1st proviso to Section 132B(1)(i). The said<\/p>\n
representation was followed by other representations, as borne by<\/p>\n
Exts.P12 to P15. The case of the petitioner is that despite filing the said<\/p>\n
petitions and reminders, the gold articles, which were seized from the<\/p>\n
petitioner, which according to the petitioner is ‘stock-in-trade’, have not<\/p>\n
been returned by the authorities concerned, in spite of the expiry of 120<\/p>\n
days as contemplated under the ‘second proviso’ to Section 132B(1)(i),<\/p>\n
which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this Writ Petition<\/p>\n
for appropriate reliefs.\n<\/p>\n
       4.   The respondents have filed a statement rebutting the<\/p>\n
averments and allegations raised in the Writ Petition contending that, the<\/p>\n
Writ Petition is devoid of any merit or bonafides and that the gold articles<\/p>\n
seized are not liable to be reckoned as ‘stock-in-trade’ under any<\/p>\n
circumstances. It is stated that, the seized materials clearly indicated that<\/p>\n
neither the stock statement nor the sales figure disclosed by the assessee<\/p>\n
was correct and that large scale of suppression of income received as<\/p>\n
”making charges”, up to 4% of the price of the gold was quite evident. It is<\/p>\n
                                       3<\/span>
\nWP(C) No. 3589\/2010<\/p>\n
further stated that the making charges are fixed as a percentage of the<\/p>\n
quantity and is not an ‘ad valorem rate’ on the price of gold, which<\/p>\n
according to the Department constitutes taxable income of the assessee<\/p>\n
from the business. It is also asserted that the seized articles were nothing<\/p>\n
but personal assets of the assessee and very much distinguishable from<\/p>\n
the ‘stock-in-trade’. Various other contentions have also been raised,<\/p>\n
stating that the assessee has not been maintaining proper books of<\/p>\n
accounts and that he is suppressing receipts and profits.<\/p>\n
       5.     Sri.P.Balakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner<\/p>\n
submits that the seizure of the materials is not sustainable in the eye of<\/p>\n
law, as the seized gold articles clearly amounted to the ‘stock-in-trade’,<\/p>\n
which stands excluded from the purview of seizure, as stipulated in the<\/p>\n
proviso to Section 132 (1)(A)(B) (iii). The second contention is that there is<\/p>\n
violation of the statutory requirement, particularly for not having acted upon<\/p>\n
in tune with the mandate as provided under the ‘first’ and ‘second’ proviso<\/p>\n
to Section 132 (B) (1) (i) and the statutory period is already over. Besides<\/p>\n
the above legal contentions, assertion is also made with regard to the<\/p>\n
factual position that the items seized were actually kept apart, for the<\/p>\n
purpose of export.\n<\/p>\n
       6.     The basic question to be considered in this case is whether<\/p>\n
the seized articles stand exempted from the purview of seizure and<\/p>\n
                                     4<\/span>
\nWP(C) No. 3589\/2010<\/p>\n
whether the contention raised by the petitioner that it is ‘stock in trade’ can<\/p>\n
be accepted or not. The learned standing counsel for the respondents<\/p>\n
submits that the entire capital asset of the petitioner is not liable to be<\/p>\n
reckoned a ‘stock in trade’. The term ‘stock in trade’ is obviously not<\/p>\n
defined under the Income Tax Act and applying the meaning in the<\/p>\n
common parlance and the field of accounting, it is only be the stock which<\/p>\n
is reflected in the books of account. There is no case for the<\/p>\n
petitioner\/assessee that the seized goods was accounted any where in the<\/p>\n
books of accounts. That apart, the said material was seized not from the<\/p>\n
business premises, but from the residential premises and this being the<\/p>\n
position, even by the farthest stretch of imagination, it cannot be<\/p>\n
considered as part of ‘stock in trade’, submits the learned standing<\/p>\n
counsel. Reliance is also placed on the decision rendered by the Apex<\/p>\n
Court reported in Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Vs. Groz-<\/p>\n
Beckert Saboo Ltd. [116 ITR 125], wherein some specific observations<\/p>\n
are there with regard to the item which could be treated as ‘stock in trade’.<\/p>\n
In the said case, the raw materials and the semi finished needles which<\/p>\n
originally were stated as obtained as gift items in April were subsequently<\/p>\n
entered in the books of accounts only in September, as part of the ‘stock in<\/p>\n
trade’, virtually making it clear that the item could not have been<\/p>\n
considered as ‘stock in trade’ before entering the same in the books of<\/p>\n
                                         5<\/span>
\nWP(C) No. 3589\/2010<\/p>\n
accounts. The applicability of decision is seriously disputed from the side of<\/p>\n
the petitioner, referring to the facts and circumstances in the said case and<\/p>\n
the distinction sought to be made with regard to the factual position<\/p>\n
available in the present case. The learned counsel further submits that the<\/p>\n
residential building from where the articles were seized is situated in close<\/p>\n
proximity with the business place of the petitioner and hence that there<\/p>\n
was nothing wrong for having kept the said articles at the residence and<\/p>\n
that, such course by itself will not take it outside the purview of the ‘stock in<\/p>\n
trade’. Reference is also made to the deposition of the petitioner as well as<\/p>\n
the witnesses produced before this Court as Exts.P5 to P10. The version<\/p>\n
of the petitioner is sought to be controverted from the part of the<\/p>\n
department, by referring to some incriminating answers elicited from the<\/p>\n
witnesses, as contained in the very same Exhibits. Going by the materials<\/p>\n
on record, this Court finds that this is a question which requires to be<\/p>\n
considered and adjudicated on the basis of the evidence by the<\/p>\n
appropriate authority in the due course.\n<\/p>\n
       7.     Coming to the question of release of the gold articles to the<\/p>\n
petitioner, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the petitioner that the liability, if at all any, can only be with regard to the<\/p>\n
element of ‘tax’ in respect of the un-disclosed income, which is stated as<\/p>\n
returned by the petitioner in the form of gold and that the entire gold seized<\/p>\n
                                        6<\/span>
\nWP(C) No. 3589\/2010<\/p>\n
from the petitioner is not liable to be detained at the hands of the<\/p>\n
department in this regard. The scheme of the statute is also projected, with<\/p>\n
reference to the course to be pursued, under the ‘first’ and ‘second’ proviso<\/p>\n
to Section 132 (B) (1) (i), which shows that, it is not open to the department<\/p>\n
or the state to have the custody of the seized articles for ever and that the<\/p>\n
statute very much envisages the release of the materials, on satisfying the<\/p>\n
requirements as prescribed; simultaneously adding that the petitioner has<\/p>\n
filed a petition as contemplated in the ‘first proviso’ within 30 days which is<\/p>\n
to be acted upon and finalised within 120 days as provided in the ‘2nd<\/p>\n
proviso’. It is assured from the part of the petitioner that the petitioner will<\/p>\n
co-operate with the finalisation of the proceedings as above, which<\/p>\n
accordingly is recorded.\n<\/p>\n
       8.     The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, because of<\/p>\n
the retention of the seized gold articles at the hands of the department, the<\/p>\n
entire business operations of the petitioner have come to a stand still and<\/p>\n
that the petitioner is not in a position to satisfy the demand and the liability<\/p>\n
towards the customers. Taking note of the rival contentions, this Court<\/p>\n
finds that an early adjudication of the proceedings is very much essential to<\/p>\n
safeguard the interest of both the sides.\n<\/p>\n
       9.     In the above particular facts and circumstances, this Court<\/p>\n
directs the respondents to finalise the adjudication proceedings pursuant to<\/p>\n
                                     7<\/span>
\nWP(C) No. 3589\/2010<\/p>\n
Exts.P1 to P4 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any<\/p>\n
rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this<\/p>\n
judgment. Release of the articles seized from the petitioner shall be<\/p>\n
subject to the outcome of the decision to be rendered by the appropriate<\/p>\n
authority concerned.\n<\/p>\n
      The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                     P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
\n                                                JUDGE
\ndnc<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C).No. 3589 of 2010(W) 1. SRI.P.M.SATHYAN, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, … Respondent 2. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX 4. THE […]<\/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":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010 - 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\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010\" \/>\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=\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-12T19:07:47+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=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-12T19:07:47+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1542,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-12T19:07:47+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@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":"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010 - 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\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-12T19:07:47+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":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-12T19:07:47+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010"},"wordCount":1542,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010","name":"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-12T19:07:47+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/sri-p-m-sathyan-vs-the-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-3-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sri.P.M.Sathyan vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax on 3 June, 2010"}]},{"@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\/35994","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=35994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}