{"id":79560,"date":"2010-02-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010"},"modified":"2017-11-12T08:31:01","modified_gmt":"2017-11-12T03:01:01","slug":"prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna<\/div>\n
 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT:*\\KA AT B,5\\NGAi..0RE\nDaied this the 16\"' day of February, 2019\n\nPresent\n\n93'\n\nTHE HON'BLI:' MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNA  .  \"'2 <\/pre>\n
THE H()N’BLE Mrs JUSTICE B v;k?AG;;;’zm’7’HNA’~    <\/p>\n
Income Tax Appeal  \/ ;2″(}{}5x V<\/p>\n
Between:\n<\/p>\n
M\/54 P1’abh.:1shunkau’ Phtm
\n# 11. : Cross. 4*” Block
\nBasavcshwarulmgztr
\nBangakore 560 079 _
\nRep by Sri K S G:1r1csh_, 333
\nS\/0 K V S Seny ”\n<\/p>\n
Appellant<\/p>\n
(B y Sri S 1’z11″tE1L1Swz1:I;–t. Ac\u00a7x;) ‘  ‘. ..\n<\/p>\n
And:\n<\/p>\n
I;1″<\u00a70'1m_: "i":\u00bb.w'___(.}*i"i"i.j:-r;r
\nWard  Bmlgztkorsz  Rcespolldc :11
\n( By Sh'  S954\u00a7a2iCl1;1l2-;\u00a7'AdV.}<\/p>\n
'Thi$.44"Ahp;3E;L1l .1S v!.3led under S.?,6() A of the En<:mnc-3 Tax Act prayE.ng ti)<\/p>\n
~ . ;'s:;\u00a3..;1Si\u00a3jc the o1'dg:r E_~Jf1he ETAT, Bangalore iiaied 4.2.2()()5, em.<\/p>\n
._   ' 'E"ihis }\u00a7.p}')e;zl cotningf. 0:1 for Elcaling this' day. 8 V .7\\';1gL11';1I1111:1 }.
\n (i=\u00a2'l_iv<_:1'e\u00e9:_i tE'1c" fblfawing:\n<\/p>\n
\/3,’.\n<\/p>\n
\u00ab\u00a33\u00bb<\/p>\n
The Assessing Officer. after examining the ease of the 35565568-, held that the<\/p>\n
firm and the partners being two distinei taxable entities tinder the lI1C()1T}s3..il'”~;1X<\/p>\n
Act. the income 2-arising to each is taxable in the ll\u00a3E]lCl.\\’ of the reeipj.e_r1′;.iiii’le’ss
\nspecifically exempted under the Act and the qt\u00e9estioh of 1iiL1tuz1’i’i%__y 0f*ree’ei,r5t*
\ndoes not arise with regard to the partnership 2’ii’1e1;’is a\u00e9et.ivitieis es,th_e”s:-:i_n1e’wits<\/p>\n
done with a pro\ufb01t motive. Aeet)t’di11gly, fer the 35eai’s’-_l996–‘)7′ ;t11d.Vl99″f.-;93., <\/p>\n
the Assessing Officer assessed the reniul iiaebme L1nde:_v\\lEin\u00a7g thevil .:’;i’ld\u00bb:2i* passed by the
\nCommissioner of Appea%si’fQ1* theWzissevssihe11.t:7ye2irI l.\u00a7):9i6l\u00ab97 and 1997-98<\/p>\n
rejecting the claim of’ ‘.’\ufb01L44Itt’iAtV1v.lv_l{“},-‘ zind<\/p>\n
as:.;esse.d the mutual income of the firm<\/p>\n
and rental received fromlii1\u00ab\u00bbi’meii1 iil1e<l3at'::.1ls't')l' the firm.<\/p>\n
Being aggrie"ved 'wiVth'theA~-ordei's of zEfs'SCS$mCn[._ the appellant zissessee<\/p>\n
:_l"1led_appe\u00a7;ls~ be_ft)1'3__ the (:()iP,.!.11l':\u00a7Sl()l1CF of Appeals lbr the assessment year<\/p>\n
l.9i9'-6-97 '\u00a31l:'\u20ac\u00a7 Tl'4)v9'i7'–9:E\u00a7vtr3i1'ee again urging the plea of mutuality by relying upon<\/p>\n
 eertain.'dee'isi0ns <;\u00a3'ijvu_E:ous High Courts as well as of the Apes Court". The<\/p>\n
 CCl}l11'llSSl()\u00a3l\u20ac\u00a7" \u20ac)~ft Appeals. howevei; dismissed the appeals of the assessee by<\/p>\n
.-w''"' i<\/p>\n
t)At{l..t’3’1T.(nlz1’i{‘fl’ 21.5.2(3{l2. As against the said order, the essessee p:”\u20ac-fCt’t’Cd<\/p>\n
 a’tp.;\u00a7e21\u00a5s;Vbel’t)1-e the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The TFll)Lll1’dl’ by ibllev,\u00bb-‘ing<\/p>\n
A<\/p>\n
\/3\u00bb<\/p>\n
It is submitted on beli21lE’0t”tl1e appellant that iii the instant case. the
\n\u00a7)’cll’Il1Cl’f~\u00a7hip deed which is uniiexed dis’ aiiinexure B as weii as the SLlppiC1l}Cl1Ial1′}”
\ndeed, eieztriy indieatte. the nature. of business which is undertaken by the iirm:<\/p>\n
that the partners LIFO ail related to one another: that the pL’tl'[l]Cl’S’,’h’&’l’\u00a5”C<\/p>\n
contributed to the business oi the firm and the gatefits 21i’isii’ig etit,et7._sL T’<\/p>\n
business are divided in the respective shares ai’iio:igst the })dl’ll]{’31″S”‘._’~EVi’1\u00a3lIiiiil\ufb01ty dd <\/p>\n
not deal with any outsiders; there is no third p’c1l’:i:sf wliiehisze0n’neete:_i inthe <\/p>\n
business of the firm and therei’0re. this iswa fit case where them t5i’i:ie’~ipie:_ tiitf<\/p>\n
mittuality would apply and therefore, the Tt=i.biireal ought .te’%i;i:\\?e g”r;.tnted the
\nbenefit of the said principle uiider\ufb01yal of tlir:t”i’rie0_tiie: Tax Act 21’tt{i”t’3}{‘L’il11p[ the<\/p>\n
income of the firm from {‘dX&1ll011.\n<\/p>\n
Per cc)itt1’zt. [has stated thait. it \u00a73Cl’LlSdi of the
\nvarious terms and e’,_(l’i’1(.i’l[l(‘)l’1S.  :;43lii<t':riei"shi;) firni wcmld eleeirly indicate that
\nthis is not  'd.(3CI1'il".C  inuttlality would appiy: that in similar
\n  li"-as said principle and has bl'()U\u00a7_._{hE the income<\/p>\n
of stieli Eirms ad'-.t_i1\u00a7t'ziitcS._}has relied upon the decision of this court in M\/s<\/p>\n
Eirtzzpar-rzi1\u00a7izterpr'ise$"\u00a7'..-Vs Income Tax Officer in {TA 60!}\/2()()4 decided on<\/p>\n
i..:':\u00abii"3,7;2(}08 W'hzit;il':'}tlC'\u00a7\u00a7'_3l11Ci1\u00a5 is delivered by this Bench. in support of his<\/p>\n
8<\/span><\/p>\n
On ti reading of the various elatrses; oi’ the aforesziicl agreernents. it is<\/p>\n
clear that the nature of bLiSllit3S:~\u00a7 activities of the assessee lirm is not rext.;’ihC’ted<\/p>\n
to the pi11′[I’t’L31’S only. The tissesxee is engagecl in the bLISinCS.\\’ ti.Ef_;firt’i;5ei”e_\\=<\/p>\n
development. commission ugeiiey and other allied activities \u00a5’y’]}lCi’t”i:i1f5lltfS’ <\/p>\n
tieztling with third parties. 1%. also has the intentioj.’i oi’ ‘p’t:t.iliiig i’eso_{ti’ee:4.: ot’–t.he<\/p>\n
pz11′[I’i\u20act’S and the funds; of the partitership firm not i’i”Y}IT1:C~dl.1l[Cl_\\\u00ab’ i’et1it’i:’.ed\u00ab. iayjtlttz\ufb01 <\/p>\n
firm, can be made use of by the partners. *.._[n”~t_l1e SL1{5l)l\u00a2n1E?{1IilSy’iViigl;i\u00e9CI11tf[}[‘,
\nonly with regard to the schedule buildirtg pAi.it—–titpet F\u00e9itig Stre’et.~C.’.i\\:iil: Station,<\/p>\n
Bangaiore. two of the [)L’t1’tI]t’31’H are \u20aciI’1t”ll,1Cd”i0′ i:?<1tiix'C i.oi"–\u00a7t_ and pay tents to<\/p>\n
the firm. This is only at deviee to tpioiol' lItx'1't3S'L')i,'1.lVi'\u00a3..'.v:_.'S my the firm to atilise the<\/p>\n
S'c11"l"lC in its other ae–tiviti V__–.'_Tl1-:4'ratliie_i' cl_z:t.\u00e9\u00a7t:t.s of the initial pzirtnersliip<\/p>\n
agreetnciit are to be 'i'c::idiiaie<i:"ptu1i't .att{i.p'\u00a3i'it\u00ab;el oi" the .~;upplen1enttii'y agreeineitt.
\nSo long as there is"n;_.i ison\ufb02ict. the elt1i':'::.e..s' in no way indicate that the business
\nof the tissessee firm is re\u00a7tt'i_eted to only the partners. Tiiei'el'oi'e.. the doctrine of<\/p>\n
in:it.tialit.y. does not  in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n
 FL1_i7′,l](‘3″1}._ii}\u00a72ellIf);’}l\u00a7ii~1}”lCI1[&1i’y agrieeineitt which has been executed on<\/p>\n
 l l.l995\u00bb._ius by y\\.e’\u00bb’:t’_\\,-‘n{:).e~i”A;clI”\u00a51t3ndI”l1CF1[ so the earlier p\u00a3l1’I116l’Sl”lip deed and tliough<\/p>\n
.:’:v$i’.\u00abt\u00a7 ‘,t=.z,ii’ious t\u00e9t’.tfri\u00a7~ of the supplementary agreeinent are in order to give the<\/p>\n
 icolot-ir_ oi’_iiiGj:Li:tlity in the business of the p2l1’E:”lt3-1’5;l1ip firm, we find that taking<\/p>\n
\u00a34.\n<\/p>\n
 ‘pa*1’iieipa{(5r__%.\n<\/p>\n
Hence, where am Axs0ei;1i’io11 or Cothpahy l1’d(.lC.\\’ with its n’1e.1’11be1’s 01115;<\/p>\n
and the surplus out of the eonmton fund is dismbtstztble attntmg the I”‘lf’;L3!1_:1″l3’1;:”V.S:._<\/p>\n
{here is mtttttatlity and the >;il1’p]L13~; is not ussessublt-3 to iztx as pr01’i.’.-  me’ ‘ft; ~st__.i1’r3′. <\/p>\n
being; that there is complete identity between ilk’ 4:011?.’1″i%\ufb01tt=tdt’>;. ting! the<\/p>\n
partieipzttorx for only those members would be e_.ntit1ec!ztio \u00a7>:;1:’it\u00ab;i{3*aate’ =ir’:-,_tl1e;V-<\/p>\n
surplus who have contribute-d ta it as cL1st()me:!i_$.\n<\/p>\n
The question whether the Doctrine ()fV”\\[‘:f'[[LI'[L1E1]i{y aipgnlit-rs’t’Ln e1V’pa1*tieula1’
\nactivity is iargely :1 question of ‘f’ae’t.’__ A’<\/p>\n
Therefore. under the [)t>ei'(_it1\u00e9 or vE\\\/1tttt1til’it.y.’that E’0H0wi11g three<\/p>\n
conditions’ sho’t.11d exist. beikit’-e’ 4″t1_;t4ett.iVv’i’t’–}\u00ab’ could be brought. un\u00e9er the concept
\nof mL1[L1alH[yI (E) Thatt no persc\ufb01at e\u00bb:1;i”et;.1rn froth himself”; \u00a32) That there is no<\/p>\n
ptfofit mo:tv\u00e9\ufb01tihntttttl {3} Tltat there is no sharing tat’ profits.<\/p>\n
A W’1th reg;{:*t1_ttS\u00abt]1e first condition i.e.. no person cam earn froth himself<\/p>\n
t1’1e;11is.t11a’t, t’here'”–:z]1Vou.hJhe \u00a31 Ct)1nph:i’t3 identity between the C()1Et1″ihti%(.)l’S and<\/p>\n
ff’\/’J<\/p>\n
In the ca..~;e ofC1zel:ns_f?)r(l Club – 243 ITR 89, the nieaiiings of ‘mutual<\/p>\n
concern’ and ‘principle of aiitituaility’ were explained by stating that S.2{Zr=sl_:)i’ot’<\/p>\n
the Act shows; that the Act. recognized the principles of 11’1L1tL1ttlit~},..;,1i’1cl __ili.tfs, ii<\/p>\n
excluded all business; involving SLlL’.ll principle from the pil[“\u00bb{VlQ\\?\\:”‘-“:).l.’  Act._3<\/p>\n
except those memioraed at clause (vii) of the Section. i;~”,.fter i’e’I’citrii”lg. toiiizi; <\/p>\n
earlier decision in CIT Vs Royal l\/l*’ester:z India Tlllf;’:C;Ii~;,b Ltd _’fp9i53 24 <\/p>\n
551 (SC). the Supreme Court stated that \u00abn
\nIt is crystal clear that the law recognises the’prihie’i-ple-\u00bbo’E” 1nt1tE1\u00e92″.vit.\u00a7.,-rekcltidihg
\nthe levy of income tax from the inc’t)irie_t)f–.suci,h ivbukiiieeatto which the above<\/p>\n
principle is applicable. in the aboveAcaae,thisi__Court;”t;tipei’\u00a2Itii’*;e’Wliit3–lteS’a–le’ Society Ltd Vs CToininissioner of
\nAgricultural I T itiv.9<\u00a73Zl i6*lTl{~.27lli.i'\u00a7C.)i'iexistei1ce of which establishes the
\ndoctrine of 1]v1L1l_u'dlilyiii"TllCy~ are a\u00a7l_'t)ll()'ws (page 559)<\/p>\n
('_if_t ii 'Fheiii(le1ii'tity ol"\u00abt._he contribtitors to the fund and the recipients from the<\/p>\n
fund'tgliitheit'reatn}eri~:of the company though incorporated as a mere entity for<\/p>\n
 the c()nifet1iicr1ce ()\u00a7"*i'l.LlCA,::lllt3lTEb(3l'S and policy holders, in other wortis. as an<\/p>\n
"3<\/p>\n
ll3SIl'Llll}CllI.""\u20ac)bC\ufb02lllCl'\u00a5t"J10 their niaiidete. and in} the iii1P<.)ssibilit.}' that<\/p>\n
-\u00ab :.L’,’Q’1-1__{1;l”\u00a7\u00a3”Lll()I’S szltoailil cferive profits from contributions made by [llL’2n1SCl\\=’t3I’\u00a7 to a<\/p>\n
‘.__i”fu_nd\u00abwhipcliiieould only be expended or returned to themselves. \/5;<\/p>\n
_’ no<\/p>\n
l{)<\/p>\n
A comparison of the facts and circumstances of the above noted J.-htee<\/p>\n
decisions hats enabled us to conclude that the liissts Lllld cii”ett1t1sta:’1L’es\u00bbo'{7.thei’<\/p>\n
\u00e9iistaiit case is not covered by the decision of the Andltra Prades-i’i_ l:ilgl1_C0ttil’it.. <\/p>\n
in Nataraj Finance Corporation ease and we are .supported in our il’i’.’:\\;5′ biyvt_l\u00a71e<\/p>\n
principles laid down by the Hotfble Supreme Cotirt. aitd this eo–u_rt :tef’et’1’e::_i”t\u00abo <\/p>\n
supra. Taking into C0l1Sl(lBi’EtIl0\u00a7t the objeCtioiis..ol’ tl1e”asse:\u00ab;see.g its”._sot:t?r:c’\u00b0of<\/p>\n
funds during the relevant years an__d the app.l.ieitbilit’y_\u00bb of sz1i’cE.,l’t1nds5tbr the<\/p>\n
benefit of its members and keepiiigf’-E111 ntinrii the’Vir1t’e:?est ‘ti-it investments. the<\/p>\n
decision of this Court in Ill”! l5122;;’i()y’e\u20ac.\u00a7’I)ea\u00a3t’i_& ii.SLl’flt\u00a3’rt1ilI1’1’1’-t'(lIi()11 Relief<\/p>\n
Fund is applicable to t.he_fe. zi_i1d~.eitretimstanecsol;tlteiiiistztm case.<\/p>\n
In this context. it wotiid_i:l>e 05 Ite’lt:vt11tCt? to rel’er to the decision of this
\nCourt E'(‘3E1Ll\u20ac1’Vt”..{.l.l}’y’ us ll’. the ~1.Z\u00a7ti'”}C o&’.M\/it Amipam iifnterprises. In the sztid ease
\nzijlsomhe zt’:_:isesse_e.Awe.is it 1’egist’e’i’ed’ipz-trtttersltip firm consisting of four brothers<\/p>\n
and theii” respeeit-Eyed iigietises. The nature of the business as indicated in the said<\/p>\n
vpVa%rt11ersl’1Aip ‘deed w’;t:~:.”j_to’:ea:’ry on the business oi money lending and trade in<\/p>\n
V”-\u00ab_l:vi’1l)i’lCS and gilI’I’1\u00abtBI][.\\’. tn the said case also the contention i*eg;:1rdii1g<\/p>\n
i”‘t3}(Cl”ii\u00a73\u00a5l()t1i”(Mt the principles of mutuality was raised by the said partnersliip<\/p>\n
~.s’l’i.1’m’. pliiteirzg reliance on the decision rendered in the ease ot’Cr3nzmissio1:er of<\/p>\n
 Iinioirae Tax ‘Vs Bankipm’ Club I.-rd and Conm-iissioizer of 1:-icmne Tax Vs<\/p>\n
E’\/3;\n<\/p>\n
Acccardiitg\u00e9y, ‘E})E1()w’i11g.g uur decision in Mfs Amzpam I1-‘F1t\u20aci'[3f\u00a3’S\u00a31S;,”:.'{r’\u00a5’Cf
\nctmfimt the orciirr passed by the Tribunal and dismiss the appeal  ”
\nthe qucstiott against the 1-ip;)CH;il1I assesses .   ‘   ‘ 4 K<\/p>\n
An<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010 Author: K.L.Manjunath & B.V.Nagarathna THE HIGH COURT OF KARNAT:*\\KA AT B,5\\NGAi..0RE Daied this the 16″‘ day of February, 2019 Present 93′ THE HON’BLI:’ MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNA . “‘2 THE H()N’BLE Mrs JUSTICE B v;k?AG;;;’zm’7’HNA’~ Income Tax Appeal \/ ;2″(}{}5x […]<\/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-79560","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nPrabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 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\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-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=\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-12T03:01:01+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=\"11 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T03:01:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":2136,\"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\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-12T03:01:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 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":"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 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\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-12T03:01:01+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":"11 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T03:01:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010"},"wordCount":2136,"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\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010","name":"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-02-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-12T03:01:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prabhashankar-plaza-vs-the-income-tax-officer-on-16-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prabhashankar Plaza vs The Income Tax Officer on 16 February, 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\/79560","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=79560"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79560\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79560"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79560"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79560"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}