{"id":5040,"date":"2011-07-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"},"modified":"2015-12-05T12:20:50","modified_gmt":"2015-12-05T06:50:50","slug":"commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/1879\/2009\t 6\/ 6\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1879 of 2009\n \n\nWith\n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 1880 of 2009\n \n\n \n=================================================\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-IV - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nVADILAL\nFINANCIAL SERVICES LTD - Opponent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMR MR BHATT, SR.\nADV. with MRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR SN SOPARKAR, SR.ADV. with\nMS BHOOMI M. THAKORE MRS and SWATI SOPARKAR for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 18\/07\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
1.\tRevenue
\nhas preferred these two appeals to challenge the common judgment of
\nthe Tribunal dated 17.4.2009. Following question has been commonly
\nframed in both the appeals:-\n<\/p>\n
“Whether
\nthe Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
\norder passed by the CIT(A) and thereby deleting the disallowance of
\nloss on account of diminution in the value of current investment
\ndebited in P & L A\/c. though the auditor had shown the said loss
\nto be an expenditure of capital nature?”\n<\/p>\n
2.\tBrief
\nfacts leading to the present appeals are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
2.1\tThe
\nassessee is a non-banking finance Company. For the assessment year
\n1996-97 the assessee debited to its Profit and Loss Account  an
\namount of Rs.19,55,325\/- as diminution in the value of investments.\n<\/p>\n
2.2\tThe
\ncase of the assessee was that such diminution arose on account of
\nprudential norms for accounting which the assessee debited and which
\nin any case were in tune with the norms issued by the Reserve Bank of
\nIndia ( “RBI” for short) and which the assessee was
\nrequired to follow.\n<\/p>\n
2.3\tThe
\nRevenue, however, did not accept this change brought about by the
\nassessee in its accounting and relied on the Auditor’s report,
\nwherein in clause 4(i), the Auditor had stated that the above amount
\nwas expenditure, which was capital in nature.\n<\/p>\n
2.4\tThe
\ndecision of the Assessing Officer in this regard being adverse to the
\nassessee, the same was carried in appeal. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the
\norder of the Assessing Officer, whereupon the assessee approached the
\nTribunal. The Tribunal referred to and relied on various decisions of
\nthe Apex Court  and different High Courts and, in particular, in the
\ncase of United Commercial Bank vs. Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a>
\nreported in [1999] 240 ITR 355(SC), and ruled in favour of the
\nassessee.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe
\nRevenue has approached this Court against the judgment of the
\nTribunal by virtue of which above question was decided in favour of
\nthe assessee with respect to two assessment years i.e Assessment Year
\n1996-97 and 1997-98 by the common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tAppearing
\nfor the Revenue learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R.Bhatt vehemently
\ncontended that the Tribunal committed error in accepting the
\nassessee’s version, particularly, when the Auditor in his report
\ntreated the expenditure as capital in nature.  He submitted that the
\nassessee had changed  the method of accounting abruptly in the year
\n1996-97. In Previous years assessee was following a wholly different
\npattern. He, therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have
\ninterfered with the orders of the two Revenue authorities.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tOn
\nthe other hand, learned Senior Advocate Mr.S.N.Soparkar appearing for
\nthe assessee opposed the appeals contending that  the assessee, as a
\nnon-banking finance company, was required to carry out the directives
\nof RBI. The accounting method adopted by the assessee on and from
\nassessment year 1996-97 was to bring the same in tune with the
\ndirectives of the RBI. Even otherwise,  prudence required and
\npermitted the assessee to evaluate the stock at the market value or
\ncost, whichever is lower. He pointed out that in subsequent years
\nalso the assessee had followed the same accounting method.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tReliance
\nwas placed on the decision of Apex Court in the case of Chainrup
\nSampatram vs. Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a> reported in [1953] 24 ITR
\n481, wherein it was observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
“Again, it
\nis misconception to think that any profit ” arises out of the
\nvaluation of the closing stock” and the situs of its arising or
\naccrual is where the valuation is made. As already stated, valuation
\nof unsold stock at the close of an accounting period is a necessary
\npart of the process of determining the trading results of that
\nperiod, and can in no sense be regarded as the ” source” of
\nsuch profits. Nor can the place where such valuation is made be
\nregarded as the situs of their accrual. The source of the profits and
\ngains of a business is indubitably the business, and the place of
\ntheir accrual is where the business is carried on. As such profits
\ncan be correctly ascertained according to the method adopted by an
\nassessee only after bringing into the trading account his closing
\nstock where ever it may exist, the whole of the profits must be taken
\nto accrue or arise at the place of carrying on the business. ”\n<\/p>\n
7.\tReliance
\nis also placed on the decision in the case of United Commercial Bank
\nvs. Commissioner of Income-tax<\/a> reported in [1999] 240 ITR 355(SC),
\nwherein the Apex Court held and observed as under:-\n<\/p>\n
”\tFrom the
\ndecisions discussed above, it can  be held:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThat for
\nvaluing the closing stock, it is open to the assessee to value it at
\nthe cost or market value, whichever is lower;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIn the
\nbalance-sheet, if the securities and shares are valued at cost but
\nfrom that no firm conclusion can be drawn. A taxpayer is free to
\nemploy for the purpose of his trade, his own method of keeping
\naccounts, and for that purpose, to value stock-in-trade either at
\ncost or market price.\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tA method of
\naccounting adopted by the taxpayer consistently and regularly cannot
\nbe discarded by the departmental authorities on the view that he
\nshould have adopted a different method of keeping accounts or of
\nvaluation.\n<\/p>\n
(4)\tThe concept
\nof real income is certainly applicable in judging whether there has
\nbeen income or not, but, in every case, it must be applied with care
\nand within their recognised limits.\n<\/p>\n
(5)\tWhether the
\nincome has really accrued or arisen to the assessee must be judged in
\nthe light of the reality of the situation.\n<\/p>\n
(6)\tUnder
\nsection 145 of the Act, in a case where accounts are correct and
\ncomplete but the method employed is such that in the opinion of the
\nIncome-tax Officer, the income cannot be properly deduced therefrom,
\nthe computation shall be made in such manner and on such basis as the
\nIncome-tax Officer may determine.\n<\/p>\n
****<\/p>\n
\tIn our view,
\nas stated above, consistently for 30 years, the assessee was valuing
\nthe stock-in-trade at cost for the purpose of statutory
\nbalance-sheet, and for the income-tax return, valuation was at cost
\nor market value, whichever was lower. That practice was accepted by
\nthe Department and there was no justifiable reason for not accepting
\nthe same. Preparation of the balance-sheet  in accordance with the
\nstatutory provision would not disentitle the assessee in submitting
\nthe income-tax return on the real taxable income in accordance with
\nthe method of accounting adopted by the assessee consistently and
\nregularly. That cannot be discarded by the departmental authorities
\non the ground that the assessee was maintaining the balance-sheet in
\nthe statutory form on the basis of the cost of investments. In such
\ncases, there is no question of following two different methods for
\nvaluing its stock-in-trade (investments) because the bank was
\nrequired to prepare the balance-sheet in the prescribed form and it
\nhad no option to change  it.  For the purpose of income-tax as stated
\nearlier, what is to be taxed is the real income which is to be
\ndeduced on the basis of the accounting system regularly maintained by
\nthe assessee and that was done by the assessee in the present case.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tReliance
\nwas also placed on the decision of Commissioner of Income-tax vs.
\nNainital Bank Ltd.<\/a> reported in [2009] 309 ITR 335, wherein the
\nDivision Bench upheld the decision of the Tribunal in somewhat
\nsimilar background.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tWe
\nfind that the Tribunal has examined the issue at considerable length.
\nThe Tribunal noted that the assessee being an non banking finance
\ncompany , it was regulated by the guidelines issued by the RBI. Its
\ncurrent investments were in the nature of stock-in-trade. The
\nassessee had followed the recognized method of accounting which in
\nturn recognized the principle of anticipating all losses but not
\nproviding for any profit until and unless it is realized. The
\nTribunal formed the opinion that the assessee was bound to change the
\nmethod of accounting for valuation of closing stock from stock at
\ncost or market value whichever is lower and also provided for  any
\nloss  so incurred in the books of accounts. The Tribunal noted that
\nthere was no allegation that the same method was not being followed
\nin the subsequent years.  The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that
\nchange in the method  of accounting of valuing the closing stock of
\nthe shares and securities from cost to cost or market value whichever
\nis lower was a loss incurred during the year in question.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tWe find
\nthat the observations and conclusions of the Tribunal are based on
\nthe principles set out by the Courts in various decisions, in
\nparticular, in the case of  Chainrup Sampatram vs. Commissioner of
\nIncome-tax<\/a> (supra) and United Commercial Bank vs. Commissioner of
\nIncome-tax<\/a> (supra). The assessee, following the accounting principles
\nas recognized and changing its method of accounting in tune with the
\nRBI guidelines by valuing its closing stock at cost or market value
\nwhichever is lower for the year in question, and treated the
\nresultant difference as loss suffered during the year under
\nconsideration. Simply because the Auditor treated the amount
\ndifferently, in our opinion, would not preclude the assessee from
\nclaiming it as a loss if law otherwise permitted.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tWe do not
\nfind any question of law arises. Tax Appeals are, therefore,
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(Akil Kureshi,
\nJ. )<\/p>\n
(Ms. Sonia
\nGokani, J. )<\/p>\n
sudhir<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/1879\/2009 6\/ 6 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 1879 of 2009 With TAX APPEAL No. 1880 of 2009 ================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IV – Appellant(s) Versus VADILAL […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 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\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-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=\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-12-05T06:50:50+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\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T06:50:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1565,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-12-05T06:50:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 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":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 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\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-12-05T06:50:50+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\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T06:50:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"},"wordCount":1565,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011","name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-12-05T06:50:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-unknown-on-18-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Unknown on 18 July, 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\/5040","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=5040"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5040\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}