{"id":77600,"date":"2002-04-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002"},"modified":"2016-01-14T14:32:15","modified_gmt":"2016-01-14T09:02:15","slug":"the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 172, 2002 256 ITR 84 Delhi<\/div>\n
Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
  S.B. Sinha, C.J.  <\/p>\n
 1.
\nAll the references made at the instance of the
\nRevenue in terms of Sub-section (1) of Section 256 of the Income
\nTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Act’) by the Income
\nTax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench ‘B’, New Delhi (hereinafter
\nreferred to as ‘the Tribunal’) involving common questions of law and
\nfact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of
\nby this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
2. The questions, which have been referred for opinion of
\nthis Court, are as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
“1. Whether on the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
\ncorrect in law in upholding the order of the C.I.T.
\n(Appeals) in excluding the profits arising from
\nthe sale of capital assets located outside India
\nfrom the world income?\n<\/p>\n
2. Whether on the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is
\ncorrect in law in upholding the order of C.I.T.
\n(Appeals) that the profit due to change in
\nexchange rate of the Australian Dollars is a
\ncapital gain?”\n<\/p>\n
3. However, in ITR No. 228 of 1983, only the second
\nquestion and in ITR No. 229 of 1983, only the first question has
\nbeen referred to this Court for its opinion.\n<\/p>\n
4. The factual matrix of the matter is not in dispute. The
\nassessed is a non-resident company incorporated in Australia. Its
\nshares are owned by the Government of Australia and the assessed
\ncarries on worldwide air-transport business and maintains the
\ncentralized accounts in Australia. It had sold the aircrafts, which
\nwere its capital assets. Such sales are effected outside India.\n<\/p>\n
5. The question, which arises for consideration, is as to
\nwhether the sale of such capital assets would be ‘income’
\nproportionately assessable in terms of the provisions of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
6. Although the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner (in
\nshort, ‘IAC’) held that the profits arising out of sale of capital assets
\nwould come within the purview of income at the hands of the
\nassessed, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short,
\n‘CIT(A)’) and the Tribunal held otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
7. Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, the learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the Revenue, would submit that having regard to the
\nprovisions contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Act, such
\nincome would be deemed to be an income arising in India.\n<\/p>\n
8. The learned counsel would urge that as in terms of the
\naforementioned provisions, the income derived by sale of capital
\nassets would come within the net of assessment as the same
\naccrued or arose or deemed to accrue or deemed to arise outside the
\nterritorial jurisdiction of India, in view of the legal fiction created
\nand the same must be given its full effect.\n<\/p>\n
9. The learned counsel would contend that the expression
\n‘attributable to’ is of wide amplitude and in support of the said
\ncontention reliance has been placed on  Cambay Electric Supply
\nIndustrial Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a> (1978) 113 ITR 84 and  Commissioner
\nof Income Tax v. Sterling Foods,<\/a> (1999) 237 ITR 579.\n<\/p>\n
10. The learned counsel would contend that there does not
\nexist any dispute that having regard to its worldwide network, the
\nassessed had been having computation of worldwide profit and,
\nthus, is liable to pay ‘tax’ in terms of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
11. The learned counsel would submit that having regard to
\nthe provisions contained in Section 9 and Rule 10(1) of the Income
\nTax Rules, 1962 (in short, ‘the Rules’), the sale of the capital assets
\nwould also come within the concept ‘income’ inasmuch as capital
\ngains also come within the purview thereof. Reliance in this
\nconnection has been placed on  Union of India and Anr. v. A. Sanyasi
\nRao & Ors.,<\/a> (1996) 219 ITR 330;  Commissioner of Income Tax v. G.R. Karthikeyan,<\/a> (1993) 201 ITR 866;
\n Father Epharam v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 176 ITR 78; and  Emil Webber v.
\nCommissioner of Income Tax,<\/a>  (1993) 200 ITR 483.\n<\/p>\n
12. The learned counsel would contend that there cannot
\nbe any doubt whatsoever that the capital gains would be income
\nwithin the meaning of Section 9 of the Act, even if the sale of the
\ncapital assets of the assessed takes place outside India.\n<\/p>\n
13. The learned counsel would argue that for the purpose of
\nanswering the question, a converse case may be taken into
\nconsideration inasmuch had the sale of the aircrafts took place in
\nIndia, the proportionate income could have been assessed in
\nAustralia upon setting off the amount of tax paid in India. Reliance
\nin this connection has been placed on  K.V.A.L.M. Ramanathan
\nChettiar v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras,<\/a>  (1973) 88 ITR 169.\n<\/p>\n
14. Mr. Anoop Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the assessed, on the other hand, would point out that the
\ncapital assets of the respondent were purchased outside India.\n<\/p>\n
15. The sale of such capital assets, the learned counsel
\nwould contend, being not connected with the business activity of the
\nassessed and the transaction of sale and purchase of the capital
\nassets having taken place outside India, no part of income can be
\nsaid to have accrued within India and thus it has rightly been held
\nby the CIT (A) and the Tribunal to be not ‘income’ arising in course
\nof business in India.\n<\/p>\n
16. The learned counsel would submit that in a case of this
\nnature, Section 9 of the Act will have no application. In support of
\nthe said contention, reliance has been placed on  Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax v. Quantas Airways Ltd.,  (2001) 251 ITR 264;  Commissioner of Income Tax,
\nPunjab v. R.D. Aggarwal & Co. and Anr.,<\/a>  (1965) 56 ITR 20;  Carborandum Co. v.
\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Madras,<\/a>  (1977) 108 ITR 335; and  Commissioner of Income
\nTax, A.P. v. Toshoku Ltd.,  (1980) 125 ITR 525.\n<\/p>\n
17. On the second question, reliance has been placed by
\nthe learned counsel on  Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City I
\nv. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd.,<\/a>  (1966) 60 ITR 405;  Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v.
\nCommissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal,<\/a>  (1979) 116 ITR 1;  South India Shipping
\nCorporation Ltd. v. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras,<\/a>  (1979) 116 ITR 819; and  Commissioner of Income Tax v. Arvind Mills Ltd.,<\/a>  (1992) 193 ITR 255
\n.\n<\/p>\n
18. Before adverting to the questions involved, we may
\nnotice the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules, which are as
\nunder:-\n<\/p>\n
“Section 2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise
\nrequires,–\n<\/p>\n
  …..\n<\/p>\n
(13) “business” includes any trade, commerce
\nor manufacture or any adventure or concern in
\nthe nature of trade, commerce or manufacture;\n<\/p>\n
(14) “capital asset” means property of any kind
\nheld by an assessed, whether or not connected
\nwith his business or profession, but does not
\ninclude-\n<\/p>\n
(i) any stock-in-trade, consumable stores or
\nraw materials held for the purposes of his
\nbusiness or profession;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) personal effects, that is to say, movable
\nproperty (including wearing apparel and
\nfurniture, but excluding jewellery) held for
\npersonal use by the assessed or any
\nmember of his family dependent on him.\n<\/p>\n
…..\n<\/p>\n
 (24) “income” includes-\n<\/p>\n
(i) profits and gains;\n<\/p>\n
….. ….. ….. ….. …..\n<\/p>\n
 (vi) any capital gains chargeable under
\nSection 45;\n<\/p>\n
 Section 5. Scope of total income  <\/p>\n
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
\ntotal income of any previous year of a person
\nwho is a resident includes all income from
\nwhatever source derived which-\n<\/p>\n
(a) is received or is deemed to be received in
\nIndia in such year by or on behalf of such
\nperson; or  <\/p>\n
(b) accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue
\nor arise to him in India during such year;
\nor  <\/p>\n
(c) accrues or arises to him outside India
\nduring such year:\n<\/p>\n
Provided that in the case of a person not
\nordinarily resident in India within the meaning of
\nSub-section (6) of Section 6, the income which
\naccrues or arises to him outside India shall not
\nbe so included unless it is derived from a
\nbusiness controlled in or a profession set up in
\nIndia.\n<\/p>\n
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the
\ntotal income of any previous year of a person
\nwho is a non-resident includes all income from
\nwhatever source derived which-\n<\/p>\n
(a) is received or is deemed to be received in
\nIndia in such year by or on behalf of such
\nperson; or  <\/p>\n
(b) accrues or arises or is deemed to accrue
\nor arise to him in India during such year.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 1.–Income accruing or arising
\noutside India shall not be deemed to be received
\nin India within the meaning of this section by
\nreason only of the fact that it is taken into
\naccount in a balance-sheet prepared in India.\n<\/p>\n
Explanation 2.–For the removal of doubts, it is
\nhereby declared that income which has been
\nincluded in the total of a person on the basis
\nthat it has accrued or arisen or is deemed to
\nhave accrued or arisen to him shall not again be
\nso included on the basis that it is received or
\ndeemed to be received by him in India.\n<\/p>\n
 Section 9. Income deemed to accrue or arise in India.\n<\/p>\n
(1) The following incomes shall be deemed to
\naccrue or arise in India-\n<\/p>\n
(i) all income accruing or arising, whether
\ndirectly or indirectly, through or from any
\nbusiness connection in India, or through
\nor from any property in India, or though
\nor from any asset or source of income in
\nIndia, or through the transfer of a capital
\nasset situate in India:\n<\/p>\n
Explanation.–For the purposes of this clause-\n<\/p>\n
(a) in the case of a business of which all the
\noperations are not carried out in India,
\nthe income of the business deemed under
\nthis clause to accrue or arise in India
\nshall be only such part of the income as is
\nreasonably attributable to the operations
\ncarried out in India;\n<\/p>\n
(b) in the case of a non-resident, no income
\nshall be deemed to accrue or arise in India
\nto him through or from operations which
\nare confined to the purchase of goods in
\nIndia for the purpose of export;\n<\/p>\n
(c) in the case of a non-resident, being a
\nperson engaged in the business of
\nrunning a news agency or of publishing
\nnewspapers, magazines or journals, no
\nincome shall be deemed to accrue or arise
\nin India to him through or from activities
\nwhich are confined to the collection of
\nnews and views in India for transmission
\nout of India;\n<\/p>\n
(d) in the case of a non-resident being-\n<\/p>\n
(1) an individual who is not a citizen of
\nIndia; or  <\/p>\n
(2) a firm which does not have any
\npartner who is a citizen of India or who is
\nresident in India; or  <\/p>\n
(3) a company which does not have
\nany shareholder who is a citizen of India
\nor who is resident in India,  <\/p>\n
 no income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in
\nIndia to such individual, firm or company
\nthrough or from operations which are confined to
\nthe shooting of any cinematograph film in India;\n<\/p>\n
Section 22. Income from house property  <\/p>\n
The annual value of property consisting of
\nany buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of
\nwhich the assessed is the owner, other than
\nsuch portions of such property as he may
\noccupy for the purposes of any business or
\nprofession carried on by him the profits of which
\nare chargeable to income-tax shall be chargeable
\nto income-tax under the head “Income from
\nhouse property”.\n<\/p>\n
Section 45. Capital gains  <\/p>\n
(1) Any profits or gains arising from the
\ntransfer of a capital asset effected in the previous
\nyear shall, save as otherwise provided in Sections
\n54, 54B, 54D, 54E, 54EA, 54F, 54G and
\n54H, be chargeable to income-tax under the
\nhead “Capital gains”, and shall be deemed to be
\nthe income of the previous year in which the
\ntransfer took place.”\n<\/p>\n
“Rule 10. Determination of income in the case of
\nnon-residents.\n<\/p>\n
In any case in which the Assessing Officer
\nis of opinion that the actual amount of the
\nincome accruing or arising to any non-resident
\nperson whether directly or indirectly, through or
\nfrom any business connection in India or
\nthrough or from any property in India or though
\nor from any asset or source of income in India or
\nthrough or from any money lent at interest and
\nbrought into India in cash or in kind cannot be
\ndefinitely ascertained, the amount of such
\nincome for the purposes of assessment to
\nincome-tax may be calculated:–\n<\/p>\n
(i) at such percentage of the turnover so
\naccruing or arising as the Assessing
\nOfficer may consider to be reasonable, or<\/p>\n
(ii) on any amount which bears the same
\nproportion to the total profits and gains of
\nthe business of such person (such profits
\nand gains being computed in accordance
\nwith the provisions of the Act), as the
\nreceipts so accruing or arising bear to the
\ntotal receipts of the business, or  <\/p>\n
(iii) in such other manner as the Assessing
\nOfficer may deem suitable.”\n<\/p>\n
19. The expression ‘income’ in terms of the interpretation
\nclause as mentioned above in Sub-section (24) of Section 2 of the
\nAct would include profits and gains and any capital gains
\nchargeable under Section 45 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
20. Section 5 of the Act provides for the scope of the total
\nincome, but the said provisions are subject to other provisions of
\nthe Act, which would include Sub-section (2) thereof.\n<\/p>\n
21. In case of a non-resident, it would include all income
\nfrom whatever source derived, which is received or is deemed to be
\nreceived in India in such year by or on behalf of such person or
\naccrue or arise or is deemed to accrue or arise to him in India
\nduring such year.\n<\/p>\n
22. What would be the scope of the legal fiction created in
\nterms of Section 5 of the Act, as specified in Section 9 of the Act?\n<\/p>\n
23. Such income, as noticed hereinbefore, must arise or
\naccrue (i) from any business connection in India, or (b) from any
\nproperty in India, or (c) from any asset or source of Income in India,
\nor (d) through the transfer of a capital asset situate in India. The
\nincome in question had not arisen from business connection in
\nIndia or from any asset or source of income in India or through
\ntransfer of a capital asset situate in India.\n<\/p>\n
24. The only question, therefore, remains for consideration,
\nis as to whether the purported ‘income’ arises through or from any
\nbusiness connection in India.\n<\/p>\n
25. The expression ‘business connection’ has not been
\ndefined in the Act. In absence of any definition, the ordinary
\nmeaning of the said expression must be taken recourse to.\n<\/p>\n
26. The meaning of expression “business”, according to
\nCollins Cobuild English Language Dictionary 1991 Edn., is as under:-\n<\/p>\n
 “…..’Business’ is work relating to the
\nproduction, buying and selling of goods or
\nservices;\n<\/p>\n
AND\/OR  <\/p>\n
“‘Business’ is the activity of buying, selling
\nor exchanging goods in deal with people or
\ncompanies.”\n<\/p>\n
27. Rule 10(2) of the Rules more or less uses the same
\nexpression as has been used in Section 9 of the Act. The assessed
\ncarried on business of operating air-transport business. The
\nbusiness activity of the assessed for the purpose of the Act must be
\nheld to be confined to the transport of passengers.\n<\/p>\n
28. Section 9(i) of the Act per se can be said to have any
\napplication in the instant case inasmuch as the answer to the
\nquestion referred has to be made in terms of Section 9 of the Act
\nalone. The explanation (a) appended to Clause (i) of Sub-section (1)
\nof Section 9 of the Act will not be much significance inasmuch as
\nthe same is confined to a case where all operations of the business
\nare carried out in India and only in that event, that part of income
\nas is reasonably attributable to the operations carried out in India
\ncan be treated to be income arising in India. In that view of the
\nmatter, the meaning of expression “attributable to” is held to have a
\nwide expression. Thus, the decision in Sterling Foods’s case (Supra)
\ncannot be said to have any application in the instant case.
\nTherein a question arose whether the assessed was entitled to use
\nthe import entitlements itself or sell the same to others and\/or
\nwhether sale of such import entitlements would be profit and gain in
\nthe context of Section 80HH of the Act and it was held that the
\nexpression “attributable to” would be of wider import. This Court is
\nnot concerned with the question raised therein.\n<\/p>\n
29. There cannot be any doubt that capital gain may be an
\nincome, but, in our opinion, the same would have been so, if the
\ntransaction would have taken place either in India or through or
\nfrom any property in India or from any asset or source of income in
\nIndia or through the transfer of the capital asset situate in India.\n<\/p>\n
30. The assessed only had some part of its business
\noperation in India. Its capital assets have nothing to do with its
\nbusiness connections in India. The words ‘business connection’ for
\nthe purpose of Sections 5 and 9 of the Act must be kept confined to
\nprofits arising out of business. When an income accruing or arising
\nfrom a business by reason of a legal fiction becomes assessable, it
\nmust be held that the same must be kept confined to receipts out of
\nthe business and not out of the sale of capital assets.\n<\/p>\n
31. In  R.D. Aggarwal & Co.’s case (Supra), it has been
\nheld:-\n<\/p>\n
  “… The expression “business connection”
\npustulates a real and intimate relation between
\ntrading activity carried on outside the taxable
\nterritories and trading activity within the
\nterritories, the relation between the two
\ncontributing to the earning of income by the
\nnon-resident in his trading activity. In this case
\nsuch a relation is absent.”\n<\/p>\n
32. In  Carborandum Co.’s case (Supra),  it has been held:-\n<\/p>\n
“… The High Court was wrong in its view that
\nactivities of the foreign personnel lent or deputed
\nby the American company amounted to a
\nbusiness activity carried on by that company in
\nthe taxable territory. The finding of the Tribunal
\nin that regard was specific and clear and was
\nunassailable in the reference in question. The
\nAmerican company had made the services of the
\nforeign personnel available to the Indian
\ncompany outside the taxable territory. The latter
\ntook them as their employees, paid their salary
\nand they worked under the direct control of the
\nIndian company. The service rendered by the
\nAmerican company in that connection was
\nwholly and solely rendered in the foreign
\nterritory. Even assuming however, that there was
\nany business connection between the earning of
\nthe income in the shape of the technical fee by
\nthe American company and the affairs of the
\nIndian company, yet no part of the activity or
\noperation could be said to have been carried on
\nby the American company in India. And in the
\nabsence of such a sustainable finding by the
\nHigh Court the provisions of Section 42, either of
\nSub-section (1) or of Sub-section (3), were not
\nattracted at all.”\n<\/p>\n
33. Yet again in  Toshoku Ltd.’s case (Supra),  the matter
\nhas been discussed in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
“… It is urged that the commission amounts
\nshould be treated as incomes deemed to have
\naccrued or arisen in India as they, according to
\nthe department, had either accrued or arisen
\nthough and from the business connection in
\nIndia that existed between the non-resident
\nassesseds and the statutory agent. This
\ncontention overlooks the effect of Clause (a) of the
\nExplanation to Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the
\nAct which provides that in the case of a
\nbusiness of which all the operations are not
\ncarried out in India, the income of the business
\ndeemed under that clause to accrue or arise in
\nIndia shall be only such part of the income as is
\nreasonably attributable to the operations
\ncarried out in India. If all such operations are
\ncarried out in India, the entire income accruing
\nthere from shall be deemed to have accrued in
\nIndia. If, however, all the operations are not
\ncarried out in the taxable territories, the profits
\nand gains of business deemed to accrue in
\nIndia through and from business connection in
\nIndia shall be only such profits and gains as are
\nreasonably attributable to that part of the
\noperations carried out in the taxable territories.
\nIf no operations of business are carried out in
\nthe taxable territories, it follows that the income
\naccruing or arising abroad through or from any
\nbusiness connection in India cannot be deemed
\nto accrue or arise in India (See CIT v. R.D.
\nAggarwal and Co.  and
\nCarborandum Co. v. CIT  which are decided on the basis of Section 42 of
\nthe Indian I.T. Act, 1922, which corresponds to
\nSection 9(1)(i) of the Act.]”\n<\/p>\n
34. In  Quantas Airways Ltd.’s case (Supra),  a Division
\nBench of this Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
“… For the purpose of determination of
\nincome in the case of non-residents, the
\nmodalities to be followed is the percentage of
\nturnover so accrued or arisen as the Income-tax
\nOfficer may consider to be reasonable or on any
\namount which bears the same proportion to the
\ntotal profits and gains of the business of such
\nperson, as the receipt so accruing or arising
\nbears to the total receipts of the business or in
\nsuch other manner as the Income-tax Officer
\nmay deem suitable.\n<\/p>\n
In the case at hand, there is no dispute
\nthat the assessed as well as the assessing
\nauthorities have gone by the proportion method,
\nthe income which has been treated as accruing
\nor arising from the business carried out in India
\nas an airliner. It has to be noted that no income
\ncan be said to have accrued or arisen, either
\ndirectly or indirectly, either through or from any
\nasset or source of income in India. It is not
\nshown as to how the assessed had or was in
\nreceipt of any income through or from any
\nmoney lent at interest and brought in India
\neither in cash or in kind. The assessed has also
\nnot received any income from any income from
\nany transfer of capital assets situate in India.
\nThe income of business which can be treated as
\ndeemed income under Section 9 must be one
\nwhich has accrued or arisen in India and the
\nsame forms part of the income derived from
\nbusiness carried out in India.”\n<\/p>\n
35. Legal fiction, as is well known, should not be extended
\nbeyond its object and purport. It shall not be applied beyond the
\npurpose for which it was created.\n<\/p>\n
36. In  D.K. Jain and Ors., etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors.,  1995 LAB.I.C. 722, it
\nwas observed that in the case of  Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of
\nBihar and Ors.,<\/a>  , it was held:-\n<\/p>\n
“Whichever view is taken of the
\nExplanation it should be limited to the purpose
\nthe Constitution makers had in view when they
\nincorporated it in Clause (1). It is quite obvious that
\nit created a legal fiction. Legal fictions are
\ncreated only for some definite purpose.”\n<\/p>\n
37. In  Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. v. Modi Sugar Mills
\nLtd.,<\/a>  , it was observed:-\n<\/p>\n
“A legal fiction must be limited to the
\npurposes for which it has been created and
\ncannot be extended beyond its legitimate field.”\n<\/p>\n
38. In  Braithwaite & Co. (India) Ltd. v. The Employees’
\nState Insurance Corporation,<\/a>  , it was held:-\n<\/p>\n
“A legal fiction is adopted in law for a
\nlimited and definite purpose only and there is no
\njustification for extending it beyond the purpose
\nfor which the legislature adopted it.”\n<\/p>\n
39. It is now well-settled principles of law that a statute
\nshould be construed firstly having regard to the literal meaning,
\nwhich can be assigned thereto. Having regard to the purport and
\nobject thereof, if the words “business connection in India” were wide
\nenough to cover all transactions including transactions in capital
\nassets, in our opinion, there was no reason for the Parliament to
\nspecifically include income (a) through or from any property in
\nIndia, (b) through or from any asset or source of income from India
\nand (c) through or from sale of capital asset situate in India.\n<\/p>\n
40. The very fact that in terms of Section 9 of the Act, the
\ntransfer of capital asset situate in India has brought within the
\npurview of the deemed income under Section 9 of the Act and Rule
\n10(2) of the Rules, the intention of the Parliament was not to bring
\nwithin its purview any income derived out of sale or purchase of a
\ncapital asset effected outside India.\n<\/p>\n
41. In  Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Galaxy Traders &
\nAgencies Ltd. and Ors.,<\/a>  , while interpreting Section 38 of the
\nNegotiable Instruments Act, it was held:-\n<\/p>\n
“3. The Act was enacted and Section 138
\nthereof incorporated with a specified object of
\nmaking a special provision by incorporating a
\nstrict liability so far as the cheque, a negotiable
\ninstrument, a concerned. The law relating to
\nnegotiable instruments is the law of commercial
\nworld legislated to facilitate the activities in trade
\nand commerce making provision of giving
\nsanctity to the instruments of credit which could
\nbe deemed to be convertible into money and
\neasily passable from one person to another. In
\nthe absence of such instruments, including a
\ncheque, the trade and commerce activities, in the
\npresent day world, are likely to be adversely
\naffected as it is impracticable for the trading
\ncommunity to carry on with it the bulk of the
\ncurrency in force. The negotiable instruments
\nare in fact the instruments of credit being
\nconvertible on account of legality of being
\nnegotiated and are easily passable from one
\nhand to another. To achieve the objectives of the
\nAct, the legislature has, in its wisdom, thought it
\nproper to make such provisions in the Act for
\nconferring such privileges to the mercantile
\ninstruments contemplated under it and provide
\nspecial penalties and procedure in case the
\nobligations under the instruments are not
\ndischarges. The laws relating to the Act are,
\ntherefore, required to be interpreted in the light
\nof the objects intended to be achieved by it
\ndespite there being deviations from the general
\nlaw and the procedure provided for the redressal
\nof the grievances to the litigants. Efforts to
\ndefeat the objectives of law by resorting to
\ninnovative measures and methods are to be
\ndiscouraged, lest it may affect the commercial
\nand mercantile activities in a smooth and
\nhealthy manner, ultimately affecting the
\neconomy of the country.”\n<\/p>\n
42. Furthermore, it is well known that in case of any doubt
\nor dispute and if two interpretations are reasonably possible, the
\nconstructions, which would favor the assessed and which has been
\nacted and accepted by the Revenue should be given effect to. (See
\n Birla Cement Works v. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors.,<\/a>  .\n<\/p>\n
43. It is also well known that requirements in fiscal statutes
\nare required to be strictly complied with. ( See Excise
\nSuperintendent, Warangal Distt. Warangal and Ors. v. Deluxe Bar,
\nKazipet, Warangal and Ors.,  .\n<\/p>\n
44. Yet again in  Reva Investment Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner
\nof Gift Tax, Gujarat II,<\/a>  , it has been held:-\n<\/p>\n
“10. Ordinarily, a gift is a transfer of property
\nwithout consideration; but for the purpose of
\nthe Act a transfer for inadequate consideration
\nis to be deemed to be a gift under Section
\n4(1)(a). By the inclusive definition in Section
\n2(xii) of the Act a “deemed gift” is also a gift.
\nThe provision of deemed gift in Section 4(1)(a) is
\nintended to bring within the purview of the tax
\nsuch transactions, which are entered between
\nthe parties to evade the tax.\n<\/p>\n
11. The question, which arises for
\ndetermination in this case, is whether the
\ntransaction made by the assessed can be said
\nto be a “deemed gift” under Section 4(1)(a) of
\nthe Act. For invoking the deeming provisions of
\nSection 4(1)(a) of the Act enquiries have to be
\nmade regarding–(i) the existence of a “transfer
\nof property”, and (ii) the extent of consideration
\ngiven i.e. whether the consideration is
\nadequate. It is necessary for the assessing
\nofficer to show that the property has been
\ntransferred otherwise than for adequate
\nconsideration. The finding as to inadequacy of
\nthe consideration is the essential sine qua non
\nfor application of the provisions of “deemed
\ngift”. The provision is to be construed in a
\nbroad commercial sense and not in a narrow
\nsense. In order to hold that a particular
\ntransfer is not for adequate consideration the
\ndifference between true value of the property
\ntransferred and the consideration that passed
\nfor the same must be appreciated in the context
\nof the facts of the particular case. If the
\ntransaction involves transfer of certain property
\nin lieu of certain other property received then
\nthe process of evaluation of the two items of
\nproperty should be similar and on such
\nevaluation if it is found that there is appreciable
\ndifference between the value of the two
\nproperties then the transaction will be taken as
\na “deemed gift” to the extent as provided in the
\nsection. It is to be found that the transaction
\nwas on inadequate consideration and the
\nparties deliberately showed the valuation of the
\ntwo properties as the same to evade tax. Such
\na conclusion cannot be drawn merely because
\naccording to the assessing officer there is some
\ndifference between the valuation of the property
\ntransferred and the consideration received.”\n<\/p>\n
45. In the aforementioned backdrop, the decisions cited by
\nMr. Sanjiv Khanna may be considered.\n<\/p>\n
46. In  A. Sanyasi Rao’s case (Supra)  and  G.R.
\nKarthikeyan’s case (Supra),  the Apex Court was considering the
\nmeaning of the word “income” in the context of Entry 82 List I of the
\n7th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Interpretation of an entry
\nshould be brought based is a well known concept, but the same
\nwould not having regard to the specific provisions contained in the
\nAct be brought into services for the purpose of construction word
\n“income” used in other context.\n<\/p>\n
47. In  Father Epharam’s case (Supra),  a Division Bench of
\nthe Karnataka High Court was considering the meaning of the word
\n“income” having regard to the scheme of Sections 2(24), 4 and 10 of
\nthe Act. The question, which arose for consideration, was “receipts at
\nthe hands of the assessed were referable to his occupation or vocation
\nor not”. The said decision, therefore, was rendered in the affirmative
\nin fact situation obtaining therein and no dicta has been laid down
\ntherein, which has a direct nexus with the subject matter of the
\npresent case.\n<\/p>\n
48. In  G.V.K. Industries Ltd. and Anr. v. Income Tax Officer and
\nAnr.,  (1997) 228 ITR 564, a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court was
\ninterpreting the provisions of Clause (vii)(b) of Sub-section (1) of
\nSection 9 of the Act, which shows that income by way of fees for
\ntechnical services payable by a person, who is a resident, would be
\nan income. In that case, the question arose as to whether the
\nperson residing in India has any business connection with it as a
\nnon-resident as an agent.\n<\/p>\n
49. In  K.V.A.L.M. Ramanathan Chettiar’s case (Supra),  the
\nassessed was doing money-lending business, although in Malaya as
\nwell as in India. Therein the Apex Court held that a sum of
\nRs. 1,92,816\/- had suffered double taxation, in this case, the
\nquestion of set off does not arise.\n<\/p>\n
50. In  Commissioner of Income Tax v. Bharat Heavy
\nElectricals Ltd.,<\/a>  (1999) 239 ITR 756, a Division Bench of this Court was concerned with
\na question as to whether a particular expenditure is capital or
\nrevenue in nature. Thus, the same has no application in the case at
\nhand.\n<\/p>\n
51. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion
\nthat the first question must be answered in the affirmative, in
\nfavor of the assessed and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
52. So far as the second question is concerned, having
\nregard to the answer to the question No. 1, the same does not
\nsubsist.\n<\/p>\n
53. The said question, however, is also covered in  Tata
\nLocomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd.’s case (Supra) ;  Sutlej Cotton Mills
\nLtd.’s case (Supra) ;  Arvind Mills Ltd.’s case (Supra)  and a recent
\ndecision of this Court in  Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd.’s case (Supra)
\ntherein the question, which arose for consideration, inter alia was:-\n<\/p>\n
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, the Appellate
\nTribunal was justified in law in upholding the
\ndeletion of the disallowance of Rs. 7,65,21,000\/-
\non account of additional liability on the change
\nof rupee-rouble parity ratio?”\n<\/p>\n
54. The aforesaid question was answered stating:-\n<\/p>\n
“… Thus, the answer to the first question
\nwhether the additional liability which the
\nassessed had incurred on account of change in
\nthe rupee-rouble parity ratio would necessarily
\ndepend on the answer to the question whether
\nthe additional liability pertains to the trading
\nasset or capital asset. In the statement of the
\ncase, the Tribunal has stated that the fact that
\nthe claim in question related to the increase in
\nthe existing liabilities outstanding against the
\nassessed in respect of the supply of material
\nmade by the USSR on deferred credit facility
\nbasis was not disputed. As noticed above, even
\nthe stand of the Assessing Officer was that even
\nif the money was originally related to raw
\nmaterial inputs from the USSR but it changed its
\ncharacter when it was blocked under the
\ndeferred payment account, giving also an
\nenduring advantage to the assessed. We find
\nthat the said findings, which are pure findings of
\nfact, are not sought to be challenged as perverse
\nin the proposed question. Therefore, in the
\npresent case, admittedly the initial liability arose
\non account of purchase of new material, a
\ntrading debt, and after it had arisen, nothing
\nhappened to divest it of the character of a
\ntrading debt. In this view of the matter, applying
\nthe principles of law adumbrated in Sutlej Cotton
\nMills’ case , we are of the
\nopinion that the Tribunal came to the correct
\nconclusion that the additional liability incurred
\nby the assessed on the change of the rupee-rouble
\nparity ratio was allowable as a trading
\nliability.”\n<\/p>\n
55. These references are accordingly disposed of without
\nany order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002 Equivalent citations: 99 (2002) DLT 172, 2002 256 ITR 84 Delhi Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. All the references made at the instance of the Revenue in terms 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":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-77600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002 - 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-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002\" \/>\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 Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002 - 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-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002\" \/>\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=\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-14T09:02:15+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=\"28 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-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-14T09:02:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5620,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-14T09:02:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#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 Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@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 Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002 - 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-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-14T09:02:15+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":"28 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, … vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-14T09:02:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002"},"wordCount":5620,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002","name":"The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-14T09:02:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-quantas-airways-ltd-new-delhi-on-29-april-2002#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 Quantas Airways Ltd., New Delhi on 29 April, 2002"}]},{"@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\/77600","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=77600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}