{"id":41243,"date":"2010-01-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010"},"modified":"2015-12-07T17:24:20","modified_gmt":"2015-12-07T11:54:20","slug":"ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Millennia Developers … vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 19 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Millennia Developers … vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 19 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar N.Ananda<\/div>\n
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSEON. THIS DAY. D.V.\nSHYLENDRA IE{UMAR.J.. DELIVERED THE FOLl.O'WlN(}:\n\nJUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
The assessee is a private limited
\nbusiness activity as a developer and    = 2
\nassessment year 2005–O6, assessee
\namounts as deductible busine’ss”~e;-cpenditure
\n37 of the Income Tax Act: the  paid
\nby way of regularisation  that had been<\/p>\n
indulged in by the_”assessee”‘vvhiiejeons~’tr]isting a structure<\/p>\n
and for having’  plan. in terms of the
\nBuilding   been approved by the<\/p>\n
municipal autlhqrilties, in “terms of the provisions of the<\/p>\n
Vj’l'{ar.riate1..l<c'ai..,'Municipal'Corporations Act, 1976 and Bangalore<\/p>\n
i\\\/iaha:1aga'.rfa\u00ab._P'ali'1<e}~Buiiding Bye–iaws.<\/p>\n
 Tiiehvelairn of the assessee was disallowed by the<\/p>\n
  Of\ufb01cer, the amount claimed by way of expenditure<\/p>\n
  the head "Project Expenditure", which was nothing but<\/p>\n
 egampound fee paid to Bangalore Mahanagara Palike towards<\/p>\n
 ~<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
regularisation of deviations in construct.ion was about
\nRs.4,4~O.500\/–, for the reason that the amount which was in
\nthe nature of penalty, being penal in nature. Therefore. it
\ndid not qualify for deduction under Section 37 of
\nTax  In the appeal by the assessee,
\ncommissioner, purporting to follow:.tl’re-.ruli–n\u00e9_;ot <\/p>\n
in the case of CIT V\/s. Mamatha  re’portecl <\/p>\n
ITR 356 (Kat), dismissed the  H<\/p>\n
4. lV’:::S:tppe~al’*- tol'”theV’ Income tax Appellate
\nTribunal also ._havin’g””met_htihe,sarr1e fate, the assessee is in<\/p>\n
appeal b_evforel”t~his .courtv_lu1’ioer Section 260A of the Income<\/p>\n
;,’:’;F’eL3CAct:’13\u00e9\u00a71;…  aaaaa <\/p>\n
  on behalf of the appellant\/assessee,<\/p>\n
itMr.Dinesh.,”learned counsel would submit. that in the first<\/p>\n
Wiristariee, the amount could not be taken as a penalty, as it<\/p>\n
w._as..ai1″amount in the nature of regularisatiorl fee even in<\/p>\n
a\u00a7V\/<\/p>\n
terms of Bye–Law 6.0 of Bangalore Mahanagara Pahke
\nBuilding Bye–Laws, which reads as under:
\n“‘6.0. Deviations during Construction:<\/p>\n
i) Wherever any construction ismin__vio|ati’oii*r:dey’iati~Qn
\nof the sanctioned pian, the Co.rrimis’siohe*r:
\nhe considers that the vioiati’ons\/deyiatieovno it
\nwithin 5% of (1) the setidiaok tohbe eproyidedvv\u00e9aroujnd
\nthe buiiding, (2) plot o_oy’e*r.age_\u00bb (3)’fi’oor_Haer_ea ratio
\nand (4) heigi:–t.ffoi’   _ and that the
\ndemolition undeVr_i’ohaot_er:i  Act is not
\nteasit}.!e~:\\,yeithou’iA_ afteotiingyAstirootorai stability, he may
\nregu’ia;’r.i_;e.is.’ec’ti :y_ioi’at_ion’sfo_evi_ati’ons after recording<\/p>\n
__ deta~i.|.e’d is_e,ason_s for the iisanfiie.<\/p>\n
ii) V7-._Vioiatiovnfdeeyiat\u00e9i\u00e9oniZ”as “at 6.0(i) above may be
\n‘reg__utiia.vriz’edaoiniyiattier sanctioning the modified plan<\/p>\n
M ‘ * _record\u00bbin_Vg”t’her’eon the violations \/ deviations and<\/p>\n
V  it,_t_d.gttte.r the’V|’e”v’y’ot tee prescribed by the Corporation<\/p>\n
  _  froth time to time.”\n<\/p>\n
it   the iearned eounsei submits that the<\/p>\n
~ ~.\u00ab.fi,”f.authorities3 below have committed an error in law in<\/p>\n
 tht.,de.rs’t–anding that the payment, was in the nature of a<\/p>\n
  penalty. T he further submission is that, the ruling of this<\/p>\n
Court rendered in the case of Mamatha Enterprises is not
\nattracted to the present case for the reason that in the ease
\nof Mamatha Enterprises, on facts it was found <\/p>\n
builder \/ assessee had put up 8″‘ \ufb02oor of the  _<\/p>\n
obtaining any approved plan at all. VWhereas”‘inj” . <\/p>\n
case the assessee had put up eonstriicltio\ufb01
\napproved plan from the
\ncompounding fee was paid   deviations
\nwithin the permissible  lithe sanctioned
\nplan. In the light  enahling’   regularising such
\ndeviations””had:’paid?-ipreg1;ilarisat’i’o1’1 fee, applying the said
\nruling to the  was not called for and<\/p>\n
therefore the authori’Vties_ below have committed an error in<\/p>\n
 law. in ‘-lhfjlciingvi-that riilirig covers this case also.<\/p>\n
H   hhaize bestowed our .consideration to the<\/p>\n
 supbmislsions tirade at the Bar and perused the orders of the<\/p>\n
  atlthority, first and second appellate authority.<\/p>\n
8. The appeal is sought for adrnissiori on the
\nfollowing questions of lawn<\/p>\n
i) Whether in law, the Tribunal was
\nupholding the disaliowance of _pay4riteri:t.i.:’ot it
\nFts.4,40,500\/- for reguiarizatlAon”ef._the
\nwhich were within the permi’s.eai3ire”limits,_cheil,eahgi’it[ii\u00abE71
\nas penalty and thusip’no.i liable: to 3a_’lvt\u00abo.we.d
\nU\/s.37(t)oi the Act?  ll   <\/p>\n
ii) Whether in law”L.nder–  the payment
\nmade for reguvl’ar\u00e9–2:ati.oril-. the..lcl:e\\riation5 in the
\nplan vviltlhinlh’the;?perritiss”i’b|:erriarg.i\u00a7n could be held
\nto mptli*:pOSe of disaiiowance<\/p>\n
 ..   elspecialiy when the Appellant
\n had  sold the properties in
\nregularized plan, the profit<\/p>\n
_ _ froth v_irhi.r:,h-.hac_.i been offered for taxation?
\nit  AV  the otf\u00e9rall examination of the facts and legal<\/p>\n
 ”  that the authorities beiow have not<\/p>\n
V V’ comr11i\u00abt.t.eclv’any* error in law, warranting a correction by this<\/p>\n
?”,i”Co’urti.p in “ei$<ercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section<\/p>\n
4l_"2f<3\u20ac;l_P\u00a3of'lthe Act. We say so, for the reason that the so called<\/p>\n
it ':l_4:1"egt1:larisatio1'1 fee in terms of Bye~law 6.0 of the .Bangalore<\/p>\n
7<\/span><\/p>\n
Mahanagara Palike Byelaws is a provision made for
\nregularising the deviations\/violations as enabled U\/s.483(b}
\nof the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act. 1976 which
\nreads as under: .\n<\/p>\n
“483. Provisions respecting institution, etc,_,;’_”‘of..’g;i.iiii’
\nand criminal actions and obtaining Eegai’v_”aVdviiA;:ei”—T’ T<\/p>\n
The comm\u00e9ssioner may.-\n<\/p>\n
a)  <\/p>\n
b] compound any offenceVbaQa.inst this__
\nbye–laws or regulations wi_1__E_:<V:'i=…v_ri:–:.~i_V3_\/ byrales made by<\/p>\n
the Government be_.decIa_:red .oornpo't;:ndab|e;"<\/p>\n
10.  leaves us with no
\ndoubt as to   expenditure as it is only an<\/p>\n
amount paidlfoyr com-poun’d.~~an offence. The amount paid for<\/p>\n
 offence….is inevitably a penalty in terms of<\/p>\n
  and the mere fact that it has been<\/p>\n
‘   deseriloed asieoihpounding fee Cannot, in any way, alter the<\/p>\n
elaaracteryvof the payment which payment is in the nature of<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
11. As It is in the nature of penaitiy, the law too is
\nweli settled to hold that it can never be an amount in the
\nnature of expenditure which can qualify for deduction<\/p>\n
U\/s\/87 of the Income Tax Act and it is for this reas.o:n.,_V we<\/p>\n
have to dismiss this appeal. If an answer is __\\1?arrajn.ted-V__i1\ufb01.p_<\/p>\n
respect of the questions referred aboyfe, we _ar’1s\\ife.r the–psarr1e’q <\/p>\n
against the assessee and in favour  thgerevenu-eV.”‘  <\/p>\n
12. The appeal is <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M\/S Millennia Developers … vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 19 January, 2010 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar N.Ananda THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSEON. THIS DAY. D.V. SHYLENDRA IE{UMAR.J.. DELIVERED THE FOLl.O’WlN(}: JUDGMENT The assessee is a private limited business activity as a developer and = 2 assessment year 2005–O6, assessee […]<\/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":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Millennia Developers ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 January, 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\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Millennia Developers ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-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=\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-07T11:54:20+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=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Millennia Developers … vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 19 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-07T11:54:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":1097,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Millennia Developers ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-07T11:54:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Millennia Developers … vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 19 January, 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":"M\/S Millennia Developers ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 January, 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\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Millennia Developers ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-07T11:54:20+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":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Millennia Developers … vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 19 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-07T11:54:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010"},"wordCount":1097,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010","name":"M\/S Millennia Developers ... vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income ... on 19 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-07T11:54:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-millennia-developers-vs-the-deputy-commissioner-of-income-on-19-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Millennia Developers … vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income … on 19 January, 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\/41243","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=41243"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41243\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}