{"id":45249,"date":"2011-11-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011"},"modified":"2017-12-16T09:47:35","modified_gmt":"2017-12-16T04:17:35","slug":"haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Haryana Roadways Engg. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
Haryana Roadways Engg. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011<\/div>\n
  Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002                      1\n\n\nIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH\n\n                              ----\n\n\n\n\n                        Income Tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002\n                        Date of decision: 8.11.2010\n\n\n\nHaryana Roadways Engg. Corporation\nLimited, Gurgaon\n\n                                        --- Appellant\n\n                 Versus\n\nCommissioner of Income Tax\nRohtak\n                                        --- Respondent\n\n\n\n                              ---\n\n\n\nCORAM:     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL\n           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL\n\n                              ----\n\n\n\nPRESENT: Mr. Pankaj Jain, Advocate\n         for the appellant.\n\n           Mr. I.P. Singh, Advocate\n           for the respondent.\n\n                              ----\n\n\n\nAJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.\n<\/pre>\n
   Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002                     2<\/span><\/p>\n
           This order will dispose of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 167<\/p>\n
and 168 of 2002, 22, 23 and 24 of 2003 as the substantial question<\/p>\n
of law is common in all these appeals. The facts have, however,<\/p>\n
been taken from Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002.<\/p>\n
             This appeal under Section 260A of the Income-tax Act,<\/p>\n
1961 (for short “the Act'”) has been filed by the assessee against the<\/p>\n
order dated 10.8.2001, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,<\/p>\n
Delhi Bench “A”,    New Delhi, (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA Nos.<\/p>\n
114\/DEL\/95 and 765\/DEL\/95, in respect of the assessment year<\/p>\n
1990-91.\n<\/p>\n
           The assessee has claimed the following questions for<\/p>\n
determination by this Court:\n<\/p>\n
     1.    Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
           and on a true interpretation of the various agreements<\/p>\n
           and correspondence, the Tribunal is justified under the<\/p>\n
           law to hold that the Appellant Corporation is entitled to<\/p>\n
           deduction of Rs. 1000\/- per bus for 670 buses, amounting<\/p>\n
           to Rs. 6,70,000\/- instead of Rs. 2,000\/- per bus claimed<\/p>\n
           as a deduction out of the profits and gains for the A.Y.<\/p>\n
           1990-91 or alternatively to that extent income in the form<\/p>\n
           of sale price does not accrue and arise to the appellant?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
     2.    Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
           the Tribunal was legally justified in not allowing an<\/p>\n
           amount of Rs. 1,61,749\/- as a deduction of the expenses<\/p>\n
           incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the<\/p>\n
           business though pertaining to the earlier years but having
\n   Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002                         3<\/span><\/p>\n
            been claimed and admitted in the succeeding year under<\/p>\n
            appeal?\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      3.    Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case<\/p>\n
            the Tribunal is justified in law in holding that the income<\/p>\n
            from the rent of the canteen in the factory premises is<\/p>\n
            income from property and not business income and<\/p>\n
            consequently it is only 1\/6th of the repair is to be allowed<\/p>\n
            as a deduction and not depreciation on the building?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           At the outset, it may be noticed that the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
the assessee stated that question No.2 was not being pressed by<\/p>\n
him and so far as question No.3 is concerned, the same does not<\/p>\n
arise from the impugned order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, both the<\/p>\n
questions are declined.\n<\/p>\n
                Briefly stated, the facts of the case necessary for<\/p>\n
adjudication of question No.1 pertaining to assessment year 1990-91<\/p>\n
are that the assessee-company is a Government of Haryana<\/p>\n
Undertaking at Gurgaon and is involved in fabricating the body of<\/p>\n
buses and bringing them in the final shape for use by Haryana<\/p>\n
Roadways. So far as the Chassis of the buses are concerned, the<\/p>\n
same are being purchased from different manufacturers who<\/p>\n
guarantee them as a warranty for five years, but for bodies of the<\/p>\n
buses, there was no such written guarantee or warranty.               The<\/p>\n
payment of the buses was being made in instalments spreading over<\/p>\n
a period of 5 years. The engineers or the technical staff of the<\/p>\n
appellant used to visit various places to remove the defects.       Faced<\/p>\n
with certain practical difficulties and in view of the fact that the job of<\/p>\n
removing defects was time consuming, the Board of Directors of the
\n   Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002                      4<\/span><\/p>\n
appellant-Corporation decided that Rs. 2,000\/- per bus was to be<\/p>\n
considered as bus maintenance charges for five years for the<\/p>\n
purpose of removing any post-manufacturing defects or for<\/p>\n
maintenance etc.     The liability to the extent of Rs. 2,000\/- was<\/p>\n
charged by the Transport Department and the same was withheld by<\/p>\n
the department against the sale price. The matter was ultimately<\/p>\n
considered by the assessing officer who vide order dated 30.3.1995,<\/p>\n
did not accept the liability of Rs. 13,40,000\/- on account of supply of<\/p>\n
670 buses during the year ending 31.3.1990, relevant to the<\/p>\n
assessment year 1990-91, at the rate of Rs. 2,000\/- per bus. The<\/p>\n
assessing authority, however, held that it was neither reasonable nor<\/p>\n
convincing for allowing lump sum payment of Rs. 2,000\/- on account<\/p>\n
of maintenance charges in one year. The assessing authority, thus,<\/p>\n
allowed the said liability to be set off i.e. 1\/5th being Rs. 2,68,000\/-<\/p>\n
per year and also held that Rs. 10,70,000\/- shall be allowed in 4<\/p>\n
more years in equal instalments.\n<\/p>\n
            The assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner<\/p>\n
of Income Tax (Appeals), [for short “CIT(A)”]. The CIT(A) observed<\/p>\n
that Rs. 2,000\/- per bus for removing the defects was excessive and<\/p>\n
consequently held that a lump sum amount of Rs. 750\/- per bus for<\/p>\n
five years should be allowed as deduction from the sale price and it<\/p>\n
should not be spread over a period of five years for any post-<\/p>\n
manufacturing defects immediately found out on supply. The CIT(A),<\/p>\n
thus, restricted the deduction to Rs. 750\/- per bus for all the five<\/p>\n
years which according to the appellant amounted to enhancement of<\/p>\n
income and for which no notice had been given as required under the<\/p>\n
Act.\n<\/p>\n
   Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002                     5<\/span><\/p>\n
            The matter did not rest here and went up in appeal before<\/p>\n
the Tribunal at the instance of the assessee and the Revenue. The<\/p>\n
Tribunal by the order under appeal held that looking into the whole<\/p>\n
conspectus of the matter, one-time deduction of Rs. 1,000\/- per bus<\/p>\n
on an average would be a fair deduction. The assessee still feeling<\/p>\n
dissatisfied has filed the present appeal.\n<\/p>\n
            We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have<\/p>\n
perused the record.\n<\/p>\n
            The assessee has challenged the order of the Tribunal on<\/p>\n
the ground that the Tribunal had completely ignored that it was a<\/p>\n
contractual liability of the assessee and necessary conditions of sale<\/p>\n
and warranty for another five years were obligatory on the assessee<\/p>\n
being covered under the provisions of Sections 4, 12 and 41 of the<\/p>\n
Sale of Goods Act.        The appellant-assessee, thus, disputed the<\/p>\n
restricting of this allowance to the tune of Rs. 1,000\/- per bus.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel further submitted that the Revenue did not file any<\/p>\n
appeal against the order of the Tribunal whereby the amount of<\/p>\n
deduction was increased to Rs. 1,000\/- per bus.. The effect of this is<\/p>\n
that the Revenue has accepted that the assessee is entitled to<\/p>\n
deduction but the question is of the quantum of the amount to be<\/p>\n
allowed in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
             The point for determination in these appeals is, whether<\/p>\n
an amount of Rs. 2,000\/- per vehicle to be charged by the Haryana<\/p>\n
Roadways for removal of any post-manufacturing defects or for<\/p>\n
maintenance of the bodies of the buses was an admissible<\/p>\n
expenditure relating to the assessment year in question.
\n   Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
                    It may be noticed that initially agreement dated<\/p>\n
18.10.1988 was entered between the appellant and the Government<\/p>\n
of Haryana i.e. the Haryana Roadways. Subsequently, agreement<\/p>\n
dated 20.3.1993 was executed as the earlier agreement dated<\/p>\n
8.2.1988 was not practicable. This agreement was effective from<\/p>\n
1.4.1989. Clause 5 of the said agreement, which is relevant for the<\/p>\n
present decision, reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n
           “5) a. That the party of the second part shall give any<\/p>\n
           guarantee\/warranty as per its normal conditions of<\/p>\n
           manufacture and the expenses for its rectifications,<\/p>\n
           amendments or repairs shall be borne by the second<\/p>\n
           party.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
           b. The delivery of vehicles shall be at respective places<\/p>\n
           as per plan and any expenses incurred in removing the<\/p>\n
           manufacturing defects detected after delivery of vehicles<\/p>\n
           shall be borne by the party of the second part, or a fixed<\/p>\n
           amount may be determined as per mutual consent for<\/p>\n
           removal of those defects, which shall be borne by the<\/p>\n
           party of the second part. After the manufacturing defects<\/p>\n
           have been rectified\/removed, the party of the first part<\/p>\n
           shall issue a certificate of fitness where after the sale<\/p>\n
           shall be considered complete.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
              The liability on account of guarantee\/warranty for part<\/p>\n
manufacturing rectifications, amendments or repairs was to be borne<\/p>\n
by the assessee. It was open to the parties to the agreement to have<\/p>\n
fixed amount by mutual consent for removal of those defects which<\/p>\n
was to be borne by the assessee. It was agreed between the parties
\n   Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002                      7<\/span><\/p>\n
that the Government of Haryana (i.e. Haryana Roadways) shall<\/p>\n
withhold Rs. 2,000\/- as consolidated amount per vehicle on account<\/p>\n
of said obligation of the assessee and thereafter necessary jobs of<\/p>\n
rectification and maintenance was to be done by the Government in<\/p>\n
its own workshop.\n<\/p>\n
               The assessing officer, however, allowed a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
400\/- per vehicle per year and balance in four more years in equal<\/p>\n
instalments. However, in appeal a lump sum of Rs. 750\/- per vehicle<\/p>\n
was allowed by CIT(A). It was increased to Rs. 1,000\/- per vehicle<\/p>\n
by the Tribunal. As observed earlier, as per amended agreement<\/p>\n
dated 20.3.1993 the liability of the assessee for post-manufacturing<\/p>\n
defects in the body of the buses was discharged after the Haryana<\/p>\n
Roadways had debited a sum of Rs. 2,000\/- per vehicle for<\/p>\n
discharging the assessee of its entire liability on account of<\/p>\n
guarantee\/ warranty and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in<\/p>\n
restricting the amount of deduction at Rs. 1,000\/- per vehicle.<\/p>\n
Moreover, there being no material before the authorities to restrict the<\/p>\n
deduction to an amount other than as claimed by the assessee, in<\/p>\n
such circumstances, it is held that the assessee was entitled to<\/p>\n
deduction of Rs. 2,000\/- per vehicle. Accordingly, the question of law<\/p>\n
No.1 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue<\/p>\n
and the appeals are allowed as noticed above.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                         (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)\n                                               JUDGE\n\n\n\n                                          (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)\nNovember 8, 2010                               JUDGE\n   Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002   8<\/span>\n\n\n*rkmalik*\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court Haryana Roadways Engg. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011 Income-tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH —- Income Tax Appeal No. 167 of 2002 Date of decision: 8.11.2010 Haryana Roadways Engg. Corporation Limited, Gurgaon — Appellant Versus Commissioner […]<\/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":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-45249","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nHaryana Roadways Engg. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011 - 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\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Haryana Roadways Engg. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-16T04:17:35+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\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Haryana Roadways Engg. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T04:17:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1567,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Haryana Roadways Engg. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-16T04:17:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Haryana Roadways Engg. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Haryana Roadways Engg. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011 - 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\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Haryana Roadways Engg. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-16T04:17:35+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\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Haryana Roadways Engg. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T04:17:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011"},"wordCount":1567,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011","name":"Haryana Roadways Engg. ... vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-16T04:17:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/haryana-roadways-engg-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-8-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Haryana Roadways Engg. … vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/45249","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=45249"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/45249\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=45249"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=45249"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=45249"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}