{"id":74061,"date":"2010-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-10-26T07:16:29","modified_gmt":"2017-10-26T01:46:29","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar N.Ananda<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE\nDATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2oV.1'o_'CCC'e._V\n\nPRESENT\n\nTHE HONBLE EVIRJUSTICE o.v.sHYLE:i~ii\u00a7RA  \"  \n\nANDCL .\nTHE HONBLE MR.-JUS'1C\"CI C  \n    C \nBETWEEN:    C\n\nThe Commissioner of Income lax\nCentral Circle. C.R.B1.iil'di11gCs C'  \nIII Floor, Q'ueei11g C_'1*oad_  \"\n\nBangalore--,5G.O do ~. j _ _   ,\nRep. by S\u00a7\"Cnt.$fijaj%a=Mohiarifa:U.sl~    Appellant\n\n[By  _\nSifi Murtiiy. \u00a32 _KiIIfIC1C3..1V\"CC.' Advs .}\n\nAND: C'\n\n1. i\\C\/\u00a3fsfUnite'd,, BCrewei'ies Limited\n  \/  Viital Mallya \u00abroad\n_  F3ai1ga.l_o'i7e--56O O01 .\nC -'Represented by\n SCri-T';-Sl\ufb01arayana Rao, Director.\n\n2._Th es 'ln.eo'nie~1iax Appellate\n'I\"ribLinal.. Bangalore Bench\nIII Rloor, Santhosh Complex\n\n\" \u00ab.\u00a7{.G.road, Bangalorew56O 009.\nC' -- . Rfzpresented by the Vice President.  Respondents<\/pre>\n
__;C{By Sri S.I5’ai’fh’asaraihi. Adv. For R-1]<\/p>\n
This I.T.A is filed under Sec’Lion.260–A of the liicome
\nTax Act. 1961 arising out of order dated 2’7. E22000 in ITA
\nNo.2’73\/Bang\/99 for the assessment year 1997-98 praying
\nto: Whether the tribunal was right in deleting the prima facie
\naCI_i:.:sin’ie;’1i’ made by ll’1\u20ac:? azssessing <).1CICic?e1' peri'air1ii'1g" to the<\/p>\n
interest of Rs.74.75 lakhs accrued on inter corporate loans
\nwithout realising that the Assessing Oi'i'icer had t"u1l_.-.powe1's
\nto make an adjustment. with reference to deductionsleclainied
\nby the assessee which is at variance in the Profit_"aV11"d.g Loss
\naccount and Balance sheet filed along with th:e"ret't1_1fh5and
\netc. 5 =    *<\/p>\n
This appeal coming on__..fo.r_
\nD.V.S1-IYLENDRA KUMAR J., delhferedigthe 'i"o11t)4w'i.ng:Vg.__g  A'<\/p>\n
JUooMENr"V<\/p>\n
This appeal is .by._'a_r1der– S'ection.260-A
\nof the Income Tax Act  of the Income
\nTax Appe11ate"3T fribanai, -:.v*BanA'ggaI0Vre…V:Bench 'B' in ITA
\niva27s\/B\u00a7ngja\u00e9\u00b0tA\u00a7s;lyeaf7i9974%g in tenns of
\nAnneigure \\  had been admitted to<\/p>\n
examin'e'vtghe fo1Vlo\\Xfi.ng's"a-hstantial questions of law:<\/p>\n
V   'Whet'her"'t'he tribunal was right in deleting
\n_   prirna facte adjustment' made by the
\n T assessing Qfficer pertaining to the interest"
\n'V ' VRs.74.75 lalchs accrued on Inter
\n _c4orporate loans without realising that the
\n assessing officer had full powers to make
\n1' an adjustment with reference to
\ndeductions claimed by the assessee
\nwhich is at variance in the Profit' and Loss
\nAccount and Balance Sheet filed along
\nwith the return?\n<\/p>\n
8. Whether the assessing ojficer is entitled to
\nmake a prima facie adjustment with
\nregard to an item of income taken Credit”
\nfor in the profit and loss account’ by the<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
assessee but excluded from the<\/p>\n
computation of income with (1 comment or<\/p>\n
note?\n<\/p>\n
2. Brief facts leading to the appeal are
\nassessee is a Public Limited Company
\nBangalore Stock Exchange amongst    = ‘V
\nassessment year 1997-98, in
\nassessee, a sum of Rs.7+l-h,_v’:\/’E3..V’lal”{nsh:,
\nshown as interest on. a   lent to
\nanother company mana’ged–_  group on accrual<\/p>\n
basis had been red.1ic’ed:”‘in’..the incorhne computation<\/p>\n
exercise for ithe iieason..–_’that. the borrower was not in a
\nsound”-state of  the assessee company has<\/p>\n
shown that the .3.o’orr’ovirer leave alone paying interest but<\/p>\n
‘ ‘  . wasknot even in ahposition to repay the principal amount<\/p>\n
   V”iiV1i{ely that the assessee company may lose<\/p>\n
the en’ti1’eVt’.aIAn0unt etc. ,.\n<\/p>\n
 3. ” With the assessee following the mercantile system<\/p>\n
 of accounting and the assessing authority noticing that<\/p>\n
 V. ,_..the assessee company under an agreement, had lent a<\/p>\n
sum of Rs.3.25 crores to another company with a<\/p>\n
condition that the amount should be repaid with simple<\/p>\n
4<\/span><\/p>\n
interest at 21% pa. and as the pro\ufb01t and loss account
\nof the assessee had already been prepared wherein the<\/p>\n
assessee in fact had shown this amount as an_”‘in:’_’c-:o’me<\/p>\n
accrued to the company during the <\/p>\n
relevant for the assessment year; the a_:sse4ssi:rigV’of\ufb01cer<\/p>\n
acting under Section 143{l][al\ufb02_oil.’_lthe<\/p>\n
intimation to the assessee assessee’ that V’<\/p>\n
the claim for reduci1’1g this”‘”int.erest._ incorn’e””from the
\ntotal income of the assessee isln’ot_..pen.nis_sib1e.<\/p>\n
4. It is on*.sn–chl_intiri:iatiori;.j”—the? controversy has<\/p>\n
developed to one appeal by the assessee<\/p>\n
which calrriellto d:sn;i.\u00a7sed and a second appeal to the<\/p>\n
  w_hich”‘has…1net with success and the tribunal<\/p>\n
 accepting the real income theory put<\/p>\n
  assessee in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
V “We have examined the facts of the<\/p>\n
;  case and considered the arguments. We have
\n also perused the order of the CIT (Appeals).
\n‘ The preliminary issue herein is regarding the
\napplicability of Section 143[1)(a) with regard
\nto inclusion of income in the hands of the
\nassessee. We have already held in other
\nappeals that the Assessing O_[]’icer cannot
\ntraverse beyond the powers accorded under
\nSeciion.143(1)(a). Sri Parthasarathi cited the
\njudgment of the Karnataka High Court and<\/p>\n
5<\/span><\/p>\n
the jurisdictional High Court in that judgment<\/p>\n
in the case of God Granites and others has<\/p>\n
held that matter is in favour of the assessee._
\nApart from this several judgment cited by the-.p<\/p>\n
Id. Advocate strengthen the case of
\nassessee. Applying the same prinei-p.l_es_’_s’
\nherein also the addition made
\nAssessing Officer and cor\ufb01rmed bathe’
\n(Appeals) has to be deleted frorri the’ft’otall._:’p.  _
\nincome and the addl. Tax leviedtajlsot r”1eeds=t’o._  5
\nbe deleted.”   A’   ”\n<\/p>\n
5. The tribunal has reveprsed  \ufb01rstrli’
\nappellate authority  theV_xziew._ta_l;Zen  –the_assessing
\nauthority, therefore   before us<\/p>\n
on the questions of  Vas’~ir1diea-t,edV’above.<\/p>\n
6. We i”,}’r..Krishna, learned Special<\/p>\n
Governrnent Advocate ‘appearing for the revenue and Sri<\/p>\n
 learned Counsel appearing for the<\/p>\n
   –   ”\n<\/p>\n
  Driiifishna, learned Counsel would point out that<\/p>\n
 the of the appellate tribunal suffers from the basic<\/p>\n
 defect of not even indicating the reasons to record a<\/p>\n
  lflnding “applying the same principles herein also the<\/p>\n
addition made by the assessing officer and con\ufb01rmed by<\/p>\n
the CIT (Appeals) has to be deleted from the total<\/p>\n
irrconle and the addltional tax levied also needs to be<\/p>\n
deleted.”\n<\/p>\n
3,. The statutory provisions of Section <\/p>\n
reievant point of time reads as under:<\/p>\n
“143(1){aJ Where a return has jbeen  under ‘
\nSection 139 or in response to a”,no7t.._ic”e unci_er–.siib>s’ection
\n(1}ofSection 142,-       ”\n<\/p>\n
(1′) if any tax or interest is jbunddue art the basis<\/p>\n
of such return, after _adju’strnent of any tax
\ndeducted ‘at source, any advance tax paid
\nand any..,_amoi-int,pairigotherwise by way of
\ntax or interest, ‘then, without. prejudice to the
\nprovisions. sub;se?ctioni2}’,’ an intimation
\nshall. be \ufb01gsentjto ._th.e — ..as’sessee specyrying the
\ni.surn~’so paylablle, eand’ such intimation shall be<\/p>\n
” -Audi-ieeri\u00e9ed ‘”10′-be “a’~n”otice of demand issued<\/p>\n
lu:’:\u00a3?i~er’V,sec_tio,n I56 and all the provisions of
\n_ ._ ‘t’his=A<:t"ishall4apply accordingly: and
\n{it}, \u00abif anyfrefund is due on the basis of such
\n~. return, it shall be granted to the assessee:<\/p>\n
_   that in computing the tax or interest
\n. 'payable .by'-,._or refundable to, the assessee, the following<\/p>\n
  adjus'tnients "shall be made in the income or loss declared<\/p>\n
~_ i'n_the'  ' 'namelyr<\/p>\n
ti} ' any arithmetical errors in the return, accounts
\n  or documents accompanying it shall be
\nrectified;\n<\/p>\n
”  lit) any loss carried forward, deduction,<\/p>\n
allowance or relief, which, on the basis of the
\ninformation available in such return, accounts
\nor documents, is prima facie admissible but
\nwhich is not claimed in the return, shall be
\nallowed;\n<\/p>\n
{iii} any loss carried forward. deduction.
\nallowance or relief claimed. in the return,
\nwhich, on the basis of the information<\/p>\n
w\/A<\/p>\n
wherein the assessee itself had t’rea.ted this as an
\nincome accrued to the company. The,1’efore, t;}i1ei=e’is no
\nquestion of assessee coming up with the tli:eo1″y_’V’~of__”‘ r.eal_<\/p>\n
income\/not real income.\n<\/p>\n
:2. On the other hand,
\nCounsel appearing on  it of
\nvehemently urged  that
\nthe borrower being ‘Company which
\nwas rieitheij”   amount nor
\ninterest    practical Vi\u20acW of the
\nI3’18.'[I31:J3l’1V_’ Z of no real income and
\nthus    directing the assessing<\/p>\n
aut}\u00a71’on?t.y to “‘ac_cVept the version of the assessee that a<\/p>\n
   :AF.<s..:74L.'75 iakhs cannot be treated as part of the<\/p>\n
"iodtaie "ini:_o__rn*eV" for the assessment year. Therefore,<\/p>\n
question  adding this amount to the total income of<\/p>\n
., i',i1ie-._assessee and levying tax on that does not arise.<\/p>\n
'.52.. The incidental question is the at:t.ract.ion of the<\/p>\n
provisions of Section l4~3[1)[A} of the Act, which reads<\/p>\n
as under:\n<\/p>\n
“l43[i][A): [a] Where  a result of the
\nadjustments made under the first proviso to CT1Fii,IS\u20ac [a]
\nofsub–section[l),-\n<\/p>\n
[i] the income declared by any  <\/p>\n
return is increased: or  V’ V.\n<\/p>\n
[ii] the loss declared  <\/p>\n
return is reduced  <\/p>\n
income, 9 I A. it   l V<\/p>\n
the Assessing Officer  <\/p>\n
[A] in a case where”tlief7’ir’1creasc.in income under
\nsub Ciatds\u00e9 [iiof increased the
\ntotal  further increase
\nthe   payable under sub~<\/p>\n
s’e’ct;ionA[.l]V’  a_11.-wadditional income tax
\n A calcu.la’te:d.V_at_.l.ti–:.e’irate of twenty percent on the
\nVVd\u00abifference’het\\isreen the tax on the total income<\/p>\n
‘ it  so increased and the tax that would have been
\n<  chargeable' had such total income been
\n by the amount of adjustments and<\/p>\n
l  the additional if].(.'0fI1\u20ac"*EE\u00a7LX in the
\nintimation to be sent under sub~clause [i] of<\/p>\n
V " ll clause [a) of sub section [1};\n<\/p>\n
 [B) in a case where the loss so declared is reduced
\nunder sub~clause (ii) of this clause or the
\naforesaid adjtisiirrients have the effect of
\nconverting that loss into income, calculate a<\/p>\n
sum [hereinafter referred to as additional<\/p>\n
\u00a7\/i<\/p>\n
’10<\/p>\n
Incon1e–tax] equal to twenty per cent of the tax
\nthat would have been chargeable on the
\namount of the adjustments  if it haci been
\nthe total income of such person and spelc\u00e9iijgthe<\/p>\n
additional incomewtax so calculated;,’_inIf the<\/p>\n
intimation to be sent under sub.–__clajuse ‘{ie}.’_jof”<\/p>\n
clause [a) of subssection~{.]_];A _ V ‘ H<\/p>\n
{C} where any refund dti\u00e9e :’-g1n..der*,su’b4se\u20aci:tiof1i{e1′],
\nreduce the amount oVf._sU_ch
\namount equiVa1en”tl.:to the “income!
\ntax calculated undc.r_:’–si1b–claiisel. [Al or sub\u00bb
\nclause [13], asidthetcase.\n<\/p>\n
section (3) AVoii”tvh_iVs’vsecti’o.n or} section 154 or section 250
\nor section V25\u00ab’l;_seCtion”260 or section 262 or section
\n263 or s’eict.ionV’V-26′-‘ii,the amount on which additional<\/p>\n
in’\u00e9o1n__em\u00a3.a,>s: is’\u00ab.p__ayvable under clause (a) has been<\/p>\n
. ‘i\u00abnc1’easied_:o~rv reduced, as the case may be, the additional<\/p>\n
 . in_coI11e’sta:=;.T’shall be increased or reduced accordingly,<\/p>\n
and,-_.-~  it<\/p>\n
~ ii} in a case where the additional incoIne–taX is
\n increased, the Assessing Officer shall serve
\non the assessee a notice of demand under<\/p>\n
section 156;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in a case Where the additional incorne–taX is
\nreduced, the excess amount. paid, if any.<\/p>\n
shall be refunded.”\n<\/p>\n
\u00e9\/..\n<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
Section 143[1)(a) of the Act speaks ou’ii:””\u00bbcthe<\/p>\n
consequences of an intimation and the conseqi,1en_’c\u00e9::_i’sc<\/p>\n
that the assessee is called upon to pay_.t?_.0\u20ac54\/jet… <\/p>\n
tax on the actual tax fOL1I1d:i_: du.-eel<\/p>\n
intimation.\n<\/p>\n
13. We have perused’ thetl’orcl.e;rs:l”o.f thelvtxfbunal and
\nthe first appellate authoritylanld: thelasslessing authority.<\/p>\n
We have hea;\u00bbd’gf:d co__nsidere’dl:th.e.sfuljmissions made at\n<\/p>\n
14. VC)n” Counsel for the revenue<\/p>\n
and the as.sessee,,_ it.iscl”eaJ: to us that the controversy is<\/p>\n
  to  only for the reason that the<\/p>\n
 under Section 143(l)(a) can lead to an<\/p>\n
 at the rate of 20% of the actual tax found<\/p>\n
 due iziterms of Section 143[1)[a) of the Act as per the
\n statutory provisions stood at the relevant point of time.<\/p>\n
 ___Ti5. While learned Counsel for the revenue and the<\/p>\n
learned Counsel for the assessee are in agreement that<\/p>\n
even in respect of the interest amount i.e., 74.75 lakhs,<\/p>\n
\/’<\/p>\n
yr\/t<\/p>\n
l 2
\nappeal is still pending before this Court. In so far as this<\/p>\n
appeal is concerned, the real consequence is only
\nrelating to 20% additional tax liability in terms of<\/p>\n
Section l43(l)[a) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
16. The assessee is following the “=
\naccounting and it is also a
\nterms of an agreement had  of
\nto another company with a Vstippulation that:,th\u00a2.lborrower
\nshould repay the   interest at 21%
\np.a. When theslelavlailable even in<\/p>\n
termsV, of  ‘l by the assessee, as the<\/p>\n
assesseellf  the mercantile system of<\/p>\n
  “automatically follows that the assessee<\/p>\n
  of Rs.74.75 lakhs which accrues the<\/p>\n
moment”ltl_ic5 year is over from the date of lending,<\/p>\n
 whether or not the amount is realised in reality.<\/p>\n
 .17 We find that the observation of the first appellate<\/p>\n
  “authority to the effect that the assessee could have<\/p>\n
claimed the amount as a bad debt in respect of the<\/p>\n
principle amount which in turn, could have avoided<\/p>\n
V,<\/p>\n
13<\/span><\/p>\n
further accrual of interest etc., is appropriate in this
\nregard. If the assessee had not chosen to write off the
\namount lent to the other company and as long”‘–.it is
\nshown as outstanding amount and with <\/p>\n
to receive interest at 21% p.a. as K
\namount, accrual of interest on
\nsystem of accounting is inev_itabVle–.rAccru.ed.V’..of
\nshould definitely be broughtin  5 V
\nof the Act. b _ VA _  it  g by<\/p>\n
18. When such is  Xthere was no<\/p>\n
choice—i”oi’ “authority but to add back this<\/p>\n
amount as_Vp.art._of._tl1e~’i’ income, though the assessee<\/p>\n
   have ciaimedcthis as not a real income or on any<\/p>\n
 L’ other   <\/p>\n
19?}— In’tl1:’e” context of the admitted fact situation and<\/p>\n
V.  legal position, We \ufb01nd the \ufb01ndings recorded by the<\/p>\n
tribunal are rather perplexing. The order of the tribunal<\/p>\n
 wsuffers from the basic defect of not spelling out the<\/p>\n
reasons for reversing the well considered reasons of the<\/p>\n
assessing authority and the first appellate authority<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
more particularly when the legal position is that the
\ninterest should be brought to tax as income on accrual
\nbasis. The assessing authority was bound to
\nclaim of the assessee that a sum of
\nnot constitute income for the reason <\/p>\n
income etc.<\/p>\n
20. We are unable to accep__t:”th_e-subrnissionsimade by
\nSri Parthasarathi. the assessee as
\naccrual of income in   ‘cannot be made
\ndependant~on__  abi1ity..,.’or..” of a borrower to
\neither\\re’payV  or the interest. Assuming<\/p>\n
that it vvVa\u00abs_Vddso, there” other possibilities as provided<\/p>\n
  recogniz.ed_..under the Income Tax Act and as<\/p>\n
 I noti.ce’d:”by.l:”the first appellate authority, by way of<\/p>\n
lent amount as an irrecoverable debt and<\/p>\n
 not byulany other method. It is not open to the income<\/p>\n
 taxfauthorities, who are statutory functionaries under<\/p>\n
_the act to accept any theory propounded by the<\/p>\n
assessee which is not supported by statutory provision.<\/p>\n
The statutory provision is very clear and mandates the<\/p>\n
income tax authorities to act in particular Way. , ”<\/p>\n
M<\/p>\n
15<\/span><\/p>\n
21. We \ufb01nd the tribunal has committed a grave error<\/p>\n
in law in simply allowing the appeal of the assesste_”e_tarid<\/p>\n
reversing the \ufb01ndings of the assessing auth–orit},z:ty:2:uidi  <\/p>\n
first appellate authority on the “aspect  interetstd<\/p>\n
amount being taken as income oii_accrua1’basis.\u00ab. ” K<\/p>\n
22. Accordingly, we allovv thisvyapfhjea.1..’ T <\/p>\n
questions framed are” answe’redVi_:inufavourAofthe revenue
\nand against the assesseetantdthe of the tribunal is
\nset aside. The’gorder:__pa,ssed’~hyt’–the___assessing authority<\/p>\n
and  jtiiedd\ufb01rsttt”appellate authority is<\/p>\n
restored.” to \u00bbsbea_1f”their respective costs.<\/p>\n
      sd\/–\n<\/p>\n
 …..\n<\/p>\n
Sci\/~
\nIUDGE<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010 Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar N.Ananda IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2oV.1’o_’CCC’e._V PRESENT THE HONBLE EVIRJUSTICE o.v.sHYLE:i~ii\u00a7RA ” ANDCL . THE HONBLE MR.-JUS’1C”CI C C BETWEEN: C The Commissioner of […]<\/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-74061","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-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=\"2010-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-10-26T01:46:29+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=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T01:46:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2539,\"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\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-10-26T01:46:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\\\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 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":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-10-26T01:46:29+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":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T01:46:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010"},"wordCount":2539,"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\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010","name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-10-26T01:46:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-ms-united-breweries-limited-on-4-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M\/S United Breweries Limited on 4 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\/74061","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=74061"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/74061\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=74061"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=74061"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=74061"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}