{"id":81135,"date":"2008-04-24T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-23T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-03-28T03:24:45","modified_gmt":"2018-03-27T21:54:45","slug":"k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 24 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 24 April, 2008<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2946-2956 of 2008\n\nPETITIONER:\nK.P. Mohammed Salim\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Cochin\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA &amp; LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CIVIL APPEAL NOS.   2946-2956 OF 2008<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.11296-11306 of 2005)<\/p>\n<p>S.B. SINHA, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.\tInterpretation\/ application of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act,<br \/>\n1961 (for short, &#8220;the Act&#8221;) vis-`-vis the provision regarding Block<br \/>\nAssessment is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and<br \/>\norder dated 2.4.2004 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in<br \/>\nITA No. 172 of 2000 and WPC No. 23449 of 2003.<br \/>\nA search was conducted by the Officers of the Income Tax<br \/>\nDepartment in the residence as also in the business premises of the assessee,<br \/>\nhis sons and other associates, consequent whereupon, it was proposed to<br \/>\ntransfer the cases pertaining to the assessee to the Income Tax (Inv.) Circle,<br \/>\nCalicut to facilitate effective and coordinate investigation.  An order was<br \/>\npassed to that effect by the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore<br \/>\nunder Section 127(2) of the Act.  A notice was issued by the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer under Section 158BC of the Act to file a return setting forth the total<br \/>\nincome including the undisclosed income for the block period.<br \/>\nThe assessee filed a writ petition in the High Court of Karnataka<br \/>\nchallenging the said order of transfer of cases passed by the Chief<br \/>\nCommissioner of Income Tax.  The said writ petition was dismissed.  Writ<br \/>\nAppeals preferred thereagainst were also dismissed.<br \/>\nA notice was thereafter issued by the assessing authority asking the<br \/>\nassessee to file a return setting forth the total income including the<br \/>\nundisclosed income for the block period.  Pursuant thereto, the return was<br \/>\nfiled.  The purported undisclosed income of the assessee was determined.<br \/>\nThe said order of the Assessing Officer, Calicut was challenged on the<br \/>\nground that he had no jurisdiction to make the block assessment as the<br \/>\nauthority therefor remained with the Assessing Officer originally having the<br \/>\njurisdiction over the assessee.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.\tA Division Bench of the High Court by reason of the impugned<br \/>\njudgment opined that the provisions of Section 127 of the Act can also be<br \/>\nresorted to for a block assessment.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.\tMr. TLV Iyer, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner would submit that having regard to the definition of block<br \/>\nassessment occurring in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, Section 127 thereof ex<br \/>\nfacie cannot have any application thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.\tMr. Gopal Subramaniam, the learned Additional Solicitor General<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the Revenue, however, would support the impugned<br \/>\njudgment.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.\tThe power to conduct a search by the authorities of the Income Tax<br \/>\nDepartment in terms of Section 132 of the Act is not in dispute.  It is further<br \/>\nnot in dispute that Chapter XIV-B shall apply in a case of this nature.<br \/>\nClause (a) of Section 158 B defines &#8216;block period&#8217;, which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;(a)\t&#8220;block period&#8221; means the period comprising<br \/>\nprevious years relevant to six assessment<br \/>\nyears preceding the previous year in which<br \/>\nthe search was conducted under Section 132<br \/>\nor any requisition was made under Section<br \/>\n132A and also includes the period upto the<br \/>\ndate of the commencement of such search or<br \/>\ndate of such requisition in the previous year<br \/>\nin which the said search was conducted or<br \/>\nrequisition was made:\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that where the search is initiated or<br \/>\nthe requisition is made before the 1st day of<br \/>\nJune, 2001, the provisions of this clause<br \/>\nshall have effect as if for the words &#8220;six<br \/>\nassessment years&#8221;, the words &#8220;ten<br \/>\nassessment years&#8221; had been substituted;&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tA block period, therefore, not only would include ten years of<br \/>\nassessment but also that portion of the assessment year in which assessment<br \/>\nwas to take place as on the date of the search.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.\tChapter XIV-B provides for special procedure. Section 158 BC lays<br \/>\ndown the procedure for block assessment.  Section 158 BD provides for<br \/>\ntaking into consideration undisclosed income of any other person.  Section<br \/>\n158 BE provides for the time limit for completion of block assessment.<br \/>\nSection 158 BH of the Act reads as under:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;158BH.\tApplication of other provisions of<br \/>\nthis Act.  Save as otherwise provided in this<br \/>\nChapter, all other provisions of this Act shall apply<br \/>\nto assessment made under this Chapter.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>\tChapter XIV-B only lays down special procedure for assessment but<br \/>\nthereby the effect and purport for which the assessment of income tax is<br \/>\ndone does not stand obliterated.\n<\/p>\n<p>8.\tAn order of transfer as noticed hereinbefore can be passed by the<br \/>\nappropriate authority in terms of Section 127 of the Act, which reads as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;127.\tPower to transfer cases(1)\tThe Director<br \/>\nGeneral or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner<br \/>\nmay, after giving the assessee a reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever<br \/>\nit is possible to do so, and after recording his<br \/>\nreasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or<br \/>\nmore Assessing Officers subordinate to him<br \/>\n(whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction)<br \/>\nto any other Assessing Officer or Assessing<br \/>\nOfficers (whether with or without concurrent<br \/>\njurisdiction) also subordinate to him.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)\tWhere the Assessing Officer or Assessing<br \/>\nOfficers from whom the case is to be transferred<br \/>\nand the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to<br \/>\nwhom the case is to be transferred are not<br \/>\nsubordinate to the same Director General or Chief<br \/>\nCommissioner or Commissioner,-\n<\/p>\n<p>(a)\tWhere the Directors General or Chief<br \/>\nCommissioners or Commissioners to whom such<br \/>\nAssessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then<br \/>\nthe Director General or Chief Commissioner or<br \/>\nCommissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be<br \/>\ntransferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable<br \/>\nopportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is<br \/>\npossible to do so, and after recording his reasons for<br \/>\ndoing so, pass the order;\n<\/p>\n<p>(b)\tWhere the Directors General or Chief<br \/>\nCommissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in<br \/>\nagreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly,<br \/>\nbe passed by the Board or any such Director General or<br \/>\nChief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may,<br \/>\nby notification in the Official Gazette, authorize in this<br \/>\nbehalf.\n<\/p>\n<p>xxx\t\t\txxx\t\t\t\txxx<\/p>\n<p>Explanation:\tIn Section 120 and this Section, the<br \/>\nword &#8220;case&#8221;, in relation to any person whose name<br \/>\nis specified in any order or direction issued<br \/>\nthereunder, means all proceedings under this Act<br \/>\nin respect of any year which may be pending on<br \/>\nthe date of such order or direction or which may<br \/>\nhave been completed on or before such date, and<br \/>\nincludes also all proceedings under this Act which<br \/>\nmay be commenced after the date of such order or<br \/>\ndirection in respect of any year.\n<\/p>\n<p>9.\tAn order of transfer is passed for the purpose of assessment of<br \/>\nincome.  It serves a larger purpose.  Such an order has to be passed in public<br \/>\ninterest.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tOnly because in the said provision the words &#8220;any case&#8221; has been<br \/>\nmentioned, the same, in our opinion, would not mean that an order of<br \/>\ntransfer cannot be passed in respect of cases involving more than one<br \/>\nassessment year.\n<\/p>\n<p>\tIt would not be correct to contend that only because explanation<br \/>\nappended to Section 127 refers to the word &#8216;case&#8217; for the purpose of the said<br \/>\nSection as also Section 120, the source of power for transfer of the case<br \/>\ninvolving block assessment is relatable only to Section 120 of the Act.  It is<br \/>\na well-settled principle of interpretation of statute that a provision must be<br \/>\nconstrued in such a manner so as to make it workable. When the Income Tax<br \/>\nAct was originally enacted, Chapter XIVB was not in the statute book.  It<br \/>\nwas brought in the statute book only in the year 1996.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tThe power of transfer is in effect provides for a machinery provision.<br \/>\nIt must be given its full effect.  It must be construed in a manner so as to<br \/>\nmake it workable.  Even Section 127 of the Act is a machinery provision.  It<br \/>\nshould be construed to effectuate a charging Section so as to allow the<br \/>\nauthorities concerned to do so in a manner wherefor the statute was enacted.<br \/>\n\tThe question came up for consideration before a Division Bench of<br \/>\nthe Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mukutla Lalita vs. Commissioner of<br \/>\nIncome Tax &amp; ors. Reported in [1997] ITR 226 23 wherein it was held:<br \/>\n&#8220;Hence it can be imagined that an order has to be<br \/>\npassed as to who shall be the Assessing Officer<br \/>\nunder Section 158BG in the case of a search.  Such<br \/>\nan order can be passed only by a higher officer<br \/>\nwho may be either the Commissioner or the Chief<br \/>\nCommissioner, as the case may be.  Hence, unless<br \/>\nsuch an order has been passed, the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer to whom the records have been handed<br \/>\nover under section 158BD cannot ipso facto hand<br \/>\nover the records to the Assistant Commissioner,<br \/>\nuntil he has been chosen to act as the Assessing<br \/>\nOfficer under Section 158BG.  For doing so, a<br \/>\nprocedure for transfer of the records and the<br \/>\npassing of orders to that effect is necessary for the<br \/>\nrecords to be transferred to the officer selected<br \/>\nunder section 158BG.  It is in this context that the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 127 have to be resorted to.  It<br \/>\nis for such reason, we are unable to agree with<br \/>\nlearned standing counsel that Chapter XIV-B is a<br \/>\nself-contained special provision relating to search<br \/>\nprocedures and assessments to which Section 127<br \/>\nhas no application. The submission would have<br \/>\nbeen correct if Section 127 and Chapter XIV-B<br \/>\nwere inconsistent with each other and it has to be<br \/>\nheld because of such reason that a specific<br \/>\nprovision like Chapter XIV-B would displace a<br \/>\ngeneral provision like section 127.  But as we see<br \/>\nit, both provisions are supplemental to each other<br \/>\nand that the provisions of section 127 fill in the<br \/>\ngap between the stage of sections 158BD and<br \/>\n158BG. The impugned order passed under Section<br \/>\n127 hence cannot be faulted by saying that the<br \/>\nsection was not applicable.  It is also not correct, as<br \/>\nhas been contended, that giving a notice under<br \/>\nSection 127 in the event of a proceeding under<br \/>\nChapter XIV-B would be a mere formality without<br \/>\nany substance as records are to be compulsorily<br \/>\nhanded over to the officer under section 158BG.<br \/>\nWhile in most of the cases the submission may be<br \/>\ncorrect, yet it is conceivable that in some cases,<br \/>\nreasonable opportunity being given as<br \/>\ncontemplated under Section 127(1) or (2) of the<br \/>\nAct, the person concerned may be able to convince<br \/>\nthe authority giving the notice that he is actually<br \/>\nunrelated or unconnected to the proceeding started<br \/>\nunder Chapter XIV-B. If such conclusion is<br \/>\nreached, the authority at that stage may<br \/>\ndisassociate the person concerned from the specific<br \/>\nproceeding in Chapter XIV-B and may not transfer<br \/>\nthe papers to the other officer.  As has been fairly<br \/>\npointed out by learned standing counsel himself,<br \/>\nthe provisions of section 127(1) apply when the<br \/>\ntransfer is contemplated not only between the<br \/>\nofficers of the subordinate rank but also officers<br \/>\neither with or without concurrent jurisdiction.<br \/>\nHence, even when the records are to be transmitted<br \/>\nto the officer not higher in rank than the officer to<br \/>\nwhom the papers are handed over in the first<br \/>\ninstance under section 158BD, the provisions of<br \/>\nsection 127 are to be complied with to give<br \/>\nnotice.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>11.\tWe agree with the opinion of the Division Bench, but we may also<br \/>\nnotice that the provisions of Section 158BH had not been brought to its<br \/>\nnotice, which categorically states that all other provisions of the Act shall<br \/>\napply to assessment made under the said Chapter.  Section 127 of the Act,<br \/>\nwhich falls under Chapter XIII would therefore mutatis mutandis apply to<br \/>\nChapter XIVB particularly when the jurisdiction of the Income Tax<br \/>\nAuthorities, inter alia, relates to passing an order of assessment.<br \/>\n\tThe word &#8216;any&#8217; must be read in the context of the statute and for the<br \/>\nsaid purpose, it may in a situation of this nature, means all.  The principles<br \/>\nof purposive construction for the said purpose may be resorted to. [<a href=\"\/doc\/1944204\/\">See New<br \/>\nIndia Insurance vs. Nusli Neville Wadia<\/a> [(2007) 13 S.C.R. 598].  Thus, in<br \/>\nthe context of a statute, the word &#8216;any&#8217; may be read as all in the context of<br \/>\nthe Income Tax Act for which the power of transfer has been conferred upon<br \/>\nthe authorities specified under Section 127.\n<\/p>\n<p>10.\tWe have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that the power<br \/>\nunder Section 127 can also be exercised in respect of a block assessment.<br \/>\nFor the reasons aforementioned, we find no merit in these appeals.  The<br \/>\nappeals are dismissed accordingly with costs.  Counsel&#8217;s fee assessed at<br \/>\nRs.25,000\/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 24 April, 2008 Author: S Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2946-2956 of 2008 PETITIONER: K.P. Mohammed Salim RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Income-tax, Cochin DATE OF JUDGMENT: 24\/04\/2008 BENCH: S.B. SINHA &amp; LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA JUDGMENT: J U [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-81135","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-27T21:54:45+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=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 24 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-27T21:54:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":2075,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008\",\"name\":\"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-27T21:54:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 24 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@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":"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-27T21:54:45+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":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 24 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-27T21:54:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008"},"wordCount":2075,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008","name":"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... on 24 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-23T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-27T21:54:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-p-mohammed-salim-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-on-24-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K.P. Mohammed Salim vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, &#8230; on 24 April, 2008"}]},{"@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\/81135","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=81135"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/81135\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=81135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=81135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=81135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}