{"id":690,"date":"1987-04-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1987-04-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987"},"modified":"2018-08-06T12:00:20","modified_gmt":"2018-08-06T06:30:20","slug":"smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987","title":{"rendered":"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income … on 22 April, 1987"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income … on 22 April, 1987<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1723, \t\t 1987 SCR (2)1167<\/div>\n
Author: M Rangnath<\/div>\n
Bench: Misra Rangnath<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nSMT. PADMAVATI JAIKRISHNA\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME 'FAX,GUJARAT AHMEDABAD\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT22\/04\/1987\n\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nBENCH:\nMISRA RANGNATH\nPATHAK, R.S. (CJ)\nSINGH, K.N. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1987 AIR 1723\t\t  1987 SCR  (2)1167\n 1987 SCC  (3) 448\t  JT 1987 (2)\t230\n 1987 SCALE  (1)958\n CITATOR INFO :\n F\t    1989 SC1092\t (6)\n\n\nACT:\n    Income Tax Act, 1961--Section  57(iii)--Deduction--Claim\nfor  Expenditure incurred should be wholly  and\t exclusively\nfor purpose of earning income-Assessee to satisfy Income Tax\nOfficer.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n    The assessee, assessed as an individual, derived  income\nfrom  \"other  sources\" in the shape of\tinterest,  dividends\netc. In the assessment year 1966-67 she claimed deduction of\nRs.26,986  being interest paid on loans taken by her,  under\ns.  57(iii)  of\t the Income Tax Act, 1961.  The\t income\t Tax\nOfficer\t found\tthat out of the loans  real  investment\t was\nRs.1,250  only.\t He  disallowed the claim  of  Rs.10,275  on\nproportionate  basis. The Appellate  Assistant\tCommissioner\nrelying\t upon  the  ratio of the decision  in  Bai  Bhuriben\nLallubhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay North  Cutch\nand  Saurashtra, [1956 ITR (XXIX) 543] dismissed the  appeal\nof the assessee.\n    Before  the\t Tribunal the assessee contended:  (1)\tthat\nexpenditure  under  the head of payment of  income  tax\t and\nwealth\ttax and annuity deposits should have been  taken  as\nrevenue expenditure and the claim of interest in respect  of\nsuch loans should have been admitted and (2) that the asses-\nsee  instead  of  liquidating  the  investments\t which\t was\nreturn-oriented, found it commercially expedient and  viable\nto  raise a loan instead of disturbing the investments\tand,\ntherefore, the claim became admissible. The Tribunal reject-\ning the contentions and dismissing the appeal observed\tthat\nthe  loans  were taken for meeting her\tpersonal  obligation\nlike  payment of taxes and deposit of annuity and these\t had\nnothing to do with the business.\n    On\treference, the High Court held that at the  relevant\ntime it was obligatory for the assessee to make the  annuity\ndeposit and the earning of interest through such deposit was\nmerely\tincidental and that the portion of the loan was\t not\nintended to meet expenditure wholly and exclusively for\t the\npurpose\t of earning the income and. therefore. did not\tcome\nunder s. 57(iii) of the Act.\n1168\nDismissing the appeal of the assessee the Court.\n    HELD: 1. Unless the claim comes within the purview of s.\n57(iii) of the Income Tax Act. 1961 it would not be admissi-\nble as a deduction. [1170C]\n    2.\tThe test to apply is that the expenditure should  be\nwholly\tand exclusively for the purpose of earning  the\t in-\ncome. [1172C]\n    Eastern Investments Ltd. v. Commissioner of\t income-tax,\nWest Bengal, [1951] ITR 201 and Commissioner of\t Income-tax,\nWest  Bengal v. RaJendra Prasad Moody.<\/a> [1978] 115  ITR\t519,\nfollowed.\n    3.\tIn order that the claim for deduction could be\tsus-\ntained,\t it was for the assessee to satisfy the\t Income\t Tax\nOfficer\t that  the  loan, interest in respect  of  which  is\nclaimed\t as deduction, was laid out or expended\t wholly\t and\nexclusively  for  earning the income from out of  which\t the\ndeduction was claimed. [1170F-G]\n    4.\tThe  Income Tax Authorities as also the\t High  Court\nhave  clearly recorded a factual finding of facts  that\t the\nexpenditure in this case was to meet the personal  liability\nof payment of income-tax and wealth-tax and annuity and that\nno  part  of the expenditure came within  the  purview\tors.\n57(ii) of the Act. [1171H-1172A, D]\n    5.\tThis Court is inclined to agree with the High  Court\nthat  so  far  as meeting the liability\t of  income-tax\t and\nwealth-tax  is concerned, it was indeed a personal  one\t and\npayment thereof cannot at all be said to be expenditure laid\nout  or expended wholly and exclusively for the\t purpose  of\nearning income. So far as annuity deposit is concerned.\t the\nTribunal  and the High Court have come to the right  conclu-\nsion that the dominant purpose was not to earn income by way\nof  interest but to meet the statutory liability  of  making\nthe deposit. [1172B-C]\n    6. Unless the loan is incurred for meeting the liability\nconnected  with\t the sources itself it would  ordinarily  be\ndifficult to entertain the claims for deduction. [1172F]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 65 of
\n1975.\n<\/p>\n
    From  the  Judgment and Order dated 3.12.  1973  of\t the
\nGujarat High Court in I.T.R. No. 35 of 1972.\n<\/p>\n
1169<\/span><\/p>\n
T.A. Ramachandran, Mrs. J. Ramachandran and S.C. Ratelh
\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
V.S. Desai and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondent.
\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n    RANGANATH  MISRA, J. This appeal by certificate  is\t di-
\nrected against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat.
\n    Assessee  is assessed as an individual and\tshe  derived
\nincome from “other sources” being in the shape of  interest,
\ndividends  etc. The relevant year of assessment is  1966-67.
\nDuring\tthis  year assessee claimed  deduction\tof  Rs.26986
\nbeing  interest\t paid to Barivallabndas\t Kalidas  Estate  on
\nloans taken by her. The Income-tax Officer found that out of
\nthe loans real investment was of a sum of Rs. 1250 only.  He
\ndisallowed the claim to the extent of Rs. 10,275 on  propor-
\ntionate\t basis.\t According to him this claim  could  not  be
\nadmitted  under\t section 57(iii) of the\t Income-tax  Act  of
\n1961.\n<\/p>\n
    Assessee’s\tfirst  appeal  to  the\tAppellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner  was rejected. The Appellate  Authority  relied
\nupon  the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court  in
\nBai Bhuriben Ballubhai v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay
\nNorth  Cutch and Saurashtra. [1956] ITR (XXIX) 543 and\tdis-
\nmissed the appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    In\tfurther appeal before the Tribunal the claim of\t the
\nassessee was reiterated by contending that expenditure under
\nthe head of payment of income-tax and wealth-tax and annuity
\ndeposits  should have been taken as revenue expenditure\t and
\nthe  claim of interest in respect of such loans should\thave
\nbeen  admitted. It was further contended that  the  assessee
\ninstead\t of  liquidating the investments which\twere  return
\noriented,  found  it commercially expedient  and  viable  to
\nraise  a  loan instead of disturbing  the  investments\tand,
\ntherefore, the claim became admissible in law. The  Tribunal
\ndid  not accept this contention and observed that the  loans
\nwere taken for meeting her personal obligation like  payment
\nof taxes and deposit of annuity and these had nothing to  do
\nwith  the business. The Tribunal also relied upon the  ratio
\nof  Bombay  High Court decision referred to  above.  As\t the
\nTribunal dismissed the appeal assessee asked for the case to
\nbe  stated to the High Court and the following question\t was
\nreferred for its opinion:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
\n\t      of the case,
\n\t      1170<\/span>
\n\t      payment of interest to the extent of Rs. 10.27
\n\t      was not an admissible deduction under  section
\n\t      57(iii) of the Incometax Act?”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High Court referred to various authorities and  decided
\nagainst the assessee by concluding that at the relevant time
\nit  was\t obligatory  for the assessee to  make\tthe  annuity
\ndeposit and the earning of interest through such deposit was
\nmerely\tincidental.  The High Court further found  that\t the
\nportion\t of  the loan was not intended to  meet\t expenditure
\nwholly and exclusively for the purpose of earning the income
\nand therefore did not come under section 57(iii) of the Act.
\n    It\tis not disputed by Mr. Ramchandran for the  assessee
\nthat  unless the claim comes within the purview\t of  section
\n57(iii)\t of the Act it would not be admissible as  a  deduc-
\ntion. That section as far as relevant provides:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “The-income chargeable under the head  ‘income
\n\t      from  other sources’ shall be  computed  after
\n\t      making the following deductions, namely:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)……\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii) …\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii) any other expenditure (not being in\t the
\n\t      nature  of  capital expenditure) laid  out  or
\n\t      expended\twholly and exclusively for the\tpur-
\n\t      pose of making or earning such income;-
\n\t      P
\n\t      r
\n\t      ovided  ………………………… …….
\n\t      E
\n\t      x
\n\t      p
\n\t      l
\n\t      a
\n\t      n
\n\t      a
\n\t      t
\n\t      ion:  ……………………………….  .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\torder  that  the claim for the\tdeduction  could  be
\nsustained, it was for the assessee to satisfy the Income-tax
\nOfficer\t that  the  loan interest in  respect  of  which  is
\nclaimed\t as  deduction was laid out or expended\t wholly\t and
\nexclusively  for  earning the income from out of  which\t the
\ndeduction  was claimed. There is no dispute that the  provi-
\nsion  of section 57 of the Act corresponds to section  12(2)
\nof the Act of 1922. Dealing with a claim under section 12(2)
\nof  the 1922 Act this Court in Eastern Investments  Ltd.  v.
\nCommissioner  of Income-tax, West Bengal,<\/a> [ 1951] ITR  20  1
\nsummarised the position of law thus:-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “On  a  full review of the facts it  is  clear
\n\t      that this transaction was voluntarily  entered
\n\t      into in order indirectly to facilitate
\n\t      1171<\/span>
\n\t      the carrying on of the business of the company
\n\t      and  was\tmade  on the  ground  of  commercial
\n\t      expediency.  It  therefore  falls\t within\t the
\n\t      purview  of  Section 12(2) of  the  Income-tax
\n\t      Act. 1922, before its amendment  ………  ”
\n\t\t       “This being an investment company, if
\n\t      it  borrowed money and utilised the  same\t for
\n\t      its investments on which it earned income. the
\n\t      interest paid by it on the loans will  clearly
\n\t      be a permissible deduction under section 12(2)
\n\t      of the Income-tax Act.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In\tCommissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v.  Rajendra
\nPrasad Moody,<\/a> [1978] ITR 115.5 19 this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   “The determination of the question before
\n\t      us turns on the true interpretation of section
\n\t      57(iii) and it would, therefore. be convenient
\n\t      to refer to that section, but before we do so,
\n\t      we  may point out that section 57(iii)  occurs
\n\t      in a fasciculus of sections under the  heading
\n\t      “F–Income  from other sources”.\tSection\t 56,
\n\t      which is the first in this group of  sections,
\n\t      enacts  in sub-section (1) that  specified  in
\n\t      section 14, Items A to B, shall be  chargeable
\n\t      to  tax  under  the head\t“Income\t from  other
\n\t      sources” and sub-section (2) includes in\tsuch
\n\t      income  various items, one of which is  “divi-
\n\t      dends”.  Dividend\t on shares  is\tthus  income
\n\t      chargeable  under the head “Income from  other
\n\t      sources”.\t Section  57  provides\tfor  certain
\n\t      deductions to be made in computing the  income
\n\t      chargeable  under the head “Income from  other
\n\t      sources”\tand one of such deductions  is\tthat
\n\t      set  out in clause (iii). which reads as\tfol-
\n\t      lows:  …………..  ”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t\t\t“The  expenditure to  be  deductible
\n\t      under  section  57(iii) must be  laid  out  or
\n\t      expended\twholly and excluSively for the\tpur-
\n\t      pose of making or earning such income
\n\t      In the said decision this Court clearly  indi-
\n\t      cated that:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      “It is the purpose of the expenditure that  is
\n\t      relevant\tin determining the applicability  of
\n\t      section  57(iii)\tand  that  purpose  must  be
\n\t      making or earning of income.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  taxing authorities as also the High Court have  clearly
\nrecorded a
\n1172<\/span>
\nfactual finding facts that the expenditure in this case\t was
\nto meet the personal liability of payment of income-tax\t and
\nwealth-tax  and annuity. From the order of the\tTribunal  as
\nalso  the  judgment of the High Court it  appears  that\t the
\nassessee had taken the stand that even if the claim relating
\nto  income-tax and wealth-tax was not admissible. that\tpart
\nof  the claim relatable to annuity deposit should have\tbeen
\nadmitted  as it fetched interest. We are inclined  to  agree
\nwith the High Court that so far as meeting the liability  of
\nincome-tax  and\t wealth-tax  is concerned it  was  indeed  a
\npersonal one and payment thereof cannot at all be said to be
\nexpenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively\t for
\nthe purpose of earning income. So far as annuity deposit  is
\nconcerned  the Tribunal and the High Court have come to\t the
\nright  conclusion that the dominant purpose was not to\tearn
\nincome by way of interest but to meet the statutory liabili-
\nty  of\tmaking the deposit. The test to apply  is  that\t the
\nexpenditure should be wholly and exclusively for the purpose
\nof  earning  the income. The fact finding  authorities\thave
\ncome to the conclusion that no part of the expenditure\tcame
\nwithin the purview of section 57(iii,) of the Act.
\n    Mr.\t Ramchandran then maintained that even if there\t was
\nan  indirect  link between the expenditure  and\t the  income
\nearned,\t the claim would be admissible and relied  upon\t the
\nobservations  of  Bose. J. in Eastern Investments  Case.  No
\nattempt\t has been made by the assessee to point\t out  before
\nthe  taxing  authorities or even before the  High  Court  by
\nplacing the necessary facts to justify such a claim. On mere
\nassumptions such a point cannot be allowed to be raised here
\nfor  consideration. In fact unless the loan is incurred\t for
\nmeeting\t the liability connected with the sources itself  it
\nwould  ordinarily be difficult to entertain the\t claims\t for
\ndeduction.\n<\/p>\n
    This appeal has to fail and the order of the High  Court
\nhas  to be affirmed. We accordingly dismiss the\t appeal\t but
\nleave the parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
A.P.J.\t\t\t\t\t\t      Appeal\ndismissed.\n1173<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income … on 22 April, 1987 Equivalent citations: 1987 AIR 1723, 1987 SCR (2)1167 Author: M Rangnath Bench: Misra Rangnath PETITIONER: SMT. PADMAVATI JAIKRISHNA Vs. RESPONDENT: ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME ‘FAX,GUJARAT AHMEDABAD DATE OF JUDGMENT22\/04\/1987 BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH PATHAK, R.S. (CJ) […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-690","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nSmt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987 - 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\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987\" \/>\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=\"1987-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-08-06T06:30:20+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income … on 22 April, 1987\",\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-06T06:30:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987\"},\"wordCount\":1422,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987\",\"name\":\"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1987-04-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-08-06T06:30:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income … on 22 April, 1987\"}]},{\"@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":"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987 - 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\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1987-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-08-06T06:30:20+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income … on 22 April, 1987","datePublished":"1987-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-06T06:30:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987"},"wordCount":1422,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987","name":"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 April, 1987 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1987-04-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-08-06T06:30:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/smt-padmavati-jaikrishna-vs-addl-commissioner-of-income-on-22-april-1987#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna vs Addl. Commissioner Of Income … on 22 April, 1987"}]},{"@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\/690","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=690"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/690\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=690"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=690"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=690"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}