{"id":75756,"date":"1991-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1991-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991"},"modified":"2014-10-07T23:19:45","modified_gmt":"2014-10-07T17:49:45","slug":"kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991","title":{"rendered":"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: ILR 1992 KAR 1117, 1992 198 ITR 543 KAR, 1992 198 ITR 543 Karn<\/div>\n
Author: K S Bhat<\/div>\n
Bench: K S Bhat, N Venkatachala, S Mohan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. <\/p>\n
 1. A Division Bench of this court referred this case to the Special Bench, after doubting the correctness of the decision of an earlier Division Bench; the said earlier decision is in S. Natarajan v. CIT [1964] 52 ITR 882 (Mys).\n<\/p>\n
 2. Two question were referred by the Appellate Tribunal to this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
 “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the return filed by the assessee on May 13, 1980, before the normal date of limitation for assessment for the year 1978-79 could be deemed to be a return under section 139(4) despite the fact that a notice under section 148 had been issued by the Income-tax Officer on November 27, 1979 ?\n<\/p>\n
 2. If the answer to the above question is in the negative, whether the assessee is entitled to carry forward of loss declared in a return filed in response to a notice under section 148 ?”\n<\/p>\n
 3. All the relevant facts are found in the order of the Division Bench to which one of us was a party. In response to the notice issued on November 27, 1979 under section 148, the assessee had to file the return by December 29, 1979. But no such return was filed. The return was filed on only May 13, 1980, and the assessee’s contention was that this return should be treated as a return under section 139(4), as it was filed prior to the making of the assessment order for the relevant year, and that it was filed within the period prescribed by section 139(4). There is no dispute that in case the return was a return under section 139(4) it satisfied all the statutory requirements stated therein.\n<\/p>\n
 4. According to the assessee, since the return was a return filed under section 139(4), it falls within the description of “return filed under section 139” and if so, the loss claimed by the assessee which has been accepted was eligible to be carried forward, without the bar under section 80 against any such “carry forward”.\n<\/p>\n
 5. The Revenue contends that, when a notice is issued under section 148 and a return is not filed within the period stipulated in the said notice, any return filed thereafter cannot claim the status of a return under section 139(4), even if the return filed was within the period prescribed by section 139(4). Mr. Chanderkumar, learned counsel for the Revenue, contended before us that a proceedings initiated by a notice under section 148 is a proceeding for the benefit of the Revenue and the notice issued to the assessee under section 148 cannot be treated for all purposes under the Act as a notice issued under section 139(2); since the assessee failed to file a return under section 139(1), the assessee cannot take advantage of a proceeding initiated under section 148 to claim a loss to be determined thereunder, so that it can be carried forward under section 72 read with section 80; learned counsel urged that the assessee cannot take advantage of his own default in failing to file the return at an appropriate time earlier to have the loss determined; the object of section 147, it was contended, was to assessee the escaped income and the proceeding thereunder is solely for the benefit of the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The question referred are to be answered with reference to the provisions of the Act governing the relevant assessment year such as sections 80 and 139(4) of the present Act (which are different from the earlier Indian Income-tax Act, 1922) read with section 148 thereof.\n<\/p>\n
 7. In the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the subject of assessing the escaped income was found in section 34. Section 22 of the said Act provided for filing of the return (a subject now dealt with by section 139 of the Act); however, section 22 by itself did not prescribed any period to file the return. The subject of the loss was dealt with in section 22(2A) of the earlier Act which may be compared with the present section 139(3). Under the old Act, a provision similar to the present section 80 was not found. Section 22(2A) of the earlier Act which is comparable to section 139(3) of the present Act enable the filing of a “loss return” under circumstances stated therein; but failure to file a return under it by itself was not a ground to reject the claim of “loss” in case of a return filed under section 22(3), i.e. a return filed before any order of assessment was made. In CIT v. Kulu valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. , this proposition was accepted by the Supreme Court. The relevant passage has been quoted in order of the Division Bench while referring this matter to a special Bench. The principle stated by the Supreme Court, when applied to the present section 139, results in the inference that section 139(4) should be read as a proviso to section 139(1) and that a return filed within the time allowed under sub-section (4) of section 139 would also be considered as a return filed within the time allowed under sub-section (1). A “loss return” being the return of “minus income” (a phrase used by the Supreme Court in another decision in CIT v. Hariprasad and Co. P. Ltd ), such a return also would be a return to be considered by the Income-tax Officer. The Supreme Court had, at page 1286 of AIR, stated thus (at page 124 of 99 ITR) :\n<\/p>\n
  “From the charging provisions of the Act, it is discernible that the words ‘income’ or ‘profits and gains’ should be understood as including losses also, so that, in one sense ‘profits and gains’ represent ‘plus income’ whereas losses represent ‘minus income’ : CIT v. Karamchand Premchand Ltd. ; CIT v. Elphinstone Spg. and Wvg. Mills Co. Ltd. . In other words, loss is negative profit. Both positive and negative profits are of a revenue character. Both must enter into computation, wherever it becomes material, in the same mode of the taxable income of the assessee. Although section 6 classifies income under six heads, the main charging provision is section 3 which levies income-tax as only one tax, on the “total income” of the assessee and defined in section 2(15). An income in order to come within the purview of that definition must satisfy two conditions. Firstly, it must comprise the ‘total amount of income, profits and gains referred to in section 4(1)’. Secondly, it must be computed in the manner laid down in the Act. If either of these conditions fails, the income will not be a part of the total income that can be brought to charge.”\n<\/p>\n
 8. Thus, what is taxable is the real income properly deduced as provided by the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 9. The decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Kulu Valley Transport’s case [1970] 77 ITR 518, meets the argument of Mr. Chanderkumar that any return filed by an assessee after the receipt of a notice under section 148 but beyond the date stipulate in the notice cannot be treated as a return under section 139. The correct approach is to examine whether the “return” satisfies the requirements of section 139(4); and if it satisfies the said statutory requirements, no further argument would arise. The right given to the assessee under section 139(4) by the Act cannot be lost, merely because the Revenue has instituted proceedings under section 147, in the meanwhile. The right to file a return, failing within section 139(4), is as much a statutory right to file a return, failing within section 139(4), is as much a statutory right vested in the assessee, as is the power vested in the Assessing Officer to net in the escaped income for taxation under section 147. There is no reason to read the two provisions as in conflict with on another, or to read one provision as overriding the other; both can stand harmoniously to arrive at the true taxable income as demonstrated by the decision of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Kulu Valley Transport’s case [1970] 77 ITR 518.\n<\/p>\n
 10. Section 80 of the Act, during the relevant year read as follows :\n<\/p>\n
  “Section 80 : Submission of returns for losses. – Notwithstanding anything contained in this Chapter, no loss which has not been determined in pursuance of a return filed under section 139, shall be carried forward and set off under sub-section (1) of section 72 or sub-section (2) of section 73 or sub-section (1) of section 74.”\n<\/p>\n
 11. The bar against the carrying forward of the loss is attracted here, only if the loss is not determined in pursuance of a return filed under section 139. Under section 139, filing of a return may come under any one of the three sub-sections – 139(1), 139(2) or 139(4). Any return falling within any of these sub-sections is a return filed under section 139.\n<\/p>\n
 12. The provision of section 80 as it then stood in no way barred the “carry forward” of the loss determined in pursuance of a return filed by the assessee and the Assessing Officer had to consider such a return filed by the assessee in the instance case.\n<\/p>\n
 13. Therefore, the first question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee; the return filed by the assessee has to be treated as a return under section 139(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 14. In view of the answer to the first question which results in enabling the assessee to carry forward the loss determined by virtue of the return filed under section 139(4), the need to answer the second question does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
 15. Reference answered, accordingly, without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991 Equivalent citations: ILR 1992 KAR 1117, 1992 198 ITR 543 KAR, 1992 198 ITR 543 Karn Author: K S Bhat Bench: K S Bhat, N Venkatachala, S Mohan JUDGMENT K. Shivashankar Bhat, J. 1. A Division Bench of this court […]<\/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-75756","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991 - 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\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991\" \/>\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=\"1991-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-10-07T17:49:45+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\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991\",\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-07T17:49:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991\"},\"wordCount\":1565,\"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\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991\",\"name\":\"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1991-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-10-07T17:49:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991\"}]},{\"@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":"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991 - 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\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1991-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-10-07T17:49:45+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\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991","datePublished":"1991-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-07T17:49:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991"},"wordCount":1565,"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\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991","name":"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1991-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-10-07T17:49:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kareemsons-pvt-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-14-august-1991#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kareemsons Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax on 14 August, 1991"}]},{"@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\/75756","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=75756"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75756\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75756"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75756"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75756"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}