{"id":86385,"date":"2005-01-31T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-01-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005"},"modified":"2016-01-13T09:14:11","modified_gmt":"2016-01-13T03:44:11","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005<\/div>\n
Author: R Pal<\/div>\n
Bench: Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2335 of 2003\n\nPETITIONER:\nCommissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai\t \t  \n\nRESPONDENT:\nD.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd.\t       \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/01\/2005\n\nBENCH:\nRuma Pal,Arijit Pasayat & C.K. Thakker\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
RUMA PAL, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe primary question involved in this appeal is whether
\nthe amount received by the respondent-assessee on surrender
\nof tenancy rights is liable to capital gains tax under Section 45
\nof the Income tax Act, 1961.  The assessment year in question
\nis 1987-88.  The lease agreement was entered in 1959 for 50
\nyears under which an annual rent was paid by the lessee to the
\nlessor.  The lease would have continued till 2009. During the
\nrelevant previous year, in March 1986, the respondent
\nsurrendered its tenancy right to its lessor prematurely.  In
\nconsideration for such premature termination, the lessor paid
\nthe lessee a sum of Rs. 35 lakhs.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the assessee’s return the sum of Rs.35 lakhs had been
\ncredited to its reserve and surplus account. This was disallowed
\nby the Assessing Officer who held that the amount of
\nRs.35 lakhs was taxable as “income from other sources”  under
\nSection 10(3) read with Section 56. The assessee appealed to
\nthe Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who came to the
\nconclusion that the assessee was liable to pay capital gains on
\nthe amount of Rs. 35 lakh after deducting an amount of Rs.7
\nlakhs as the cost of acquisition. The Commissioner had
\ndetermined the cost of acquisition at Rs. 7 lakhs on the basis of
\nthe market value of the property as on 1.4.1974. Both the
\nDepartment and the assessee challenged the decision of the
\nCommissioner before the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Tribunal relied upon the decision of this Court in
\nCommissioner of Income Tax V. Srinivasa Setty 128 ITR
\n294 = (1981) 2 SCC 460 as well as the amendment to Section
\n55(2) of the Act in 1995 and held that the assessee did not
\nincur any cost to acquire the leasehold rights and that if at all
\nany cost had been incurred it was incapable of being
\nascertained.   It was therefore held that since the capital gains
\ncould not be computed as envisaged in Section 48 of the
\nIncome Tax Act, therefore capital gains earned by the assessee
\nif any was not exigible to tax.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Department preferred an appeal before the High
\nCourt.  The High Court dismissed the appeal.  Being aggrieved
\nby the decision of the High Court, this further appeal has been
\npreferred by the Department.\n<\/p>\n
The Department has contended that the surrender value
\nof the tenancy rights was chargeable to capital gains under
\nSection 45 of the Act.  If not, it was liable to be taxed as
\n‘income from other sources’ under Section 10(3) read with
\nSection 56 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\t  Section 2(24)(vi) defines ‘income’ as including “any
\ncapital gains chargeable under Section 45”.  Section 45
\nprovides that any profits or gains arising from the transfer of a
\ncapital asset effected in the previous year is chargeable to
\nincome tax under the head ‘capital gains’ and is deemed to be
\nthe income of the previous year in which the transfer took
\nplace, subject to certain exceptions which are not material in
\nthis case. Section 48 provides for the mode of computation of
\nincome chargeable under the head ‘capital gains’.  The method
\nof computation prescribed is by deducting from the full value of
\nthe consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer
\nof the capital asset, certain prescribed amounts including the
\ncost of acquisition of the assets and the cost of any
\nimprovement thereto.\n<\/p>\n
That the tenancy right is a capital asset, the surrender of
\nthe tenancy right is a “transfer” and the consideration received
\ntherefore a capital receipt within the meaning of Section 45 has
\nnot been questioned before us and must in any event be taken
\nto be concluded by the decision of this Court in A. Gasper v.
\nCommissioner of Income Tax<\/a> . Normally the consideration
\nwould therefore be subjected to capital gains under Section 45.
\n\tIn 1981 this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V.
\nB.C. Srinivasa Setty  held that all transactions encompassed
\nby Section 45 must fall within the computation provisions of
\nSection 48.  If the computation as provided under Section 48
\ncould not be applied to a particular transaction,  it must be
\nregarded as “never intended by Section 45 to be the subject of
\nthe charge”.  In that case, the Court was considering whether a
\nfirm was liable to pay capital gains on the sale of its goodwill to
\nanother firm.  The Court found that the consideration received
\nfor the sale of goodwill could not be subjected to capital gains
\nbecause the cost of its acquisition was inherently incapable of
\nbeing determined. Pathak J. as his Lordship then was,
\nspeaking for the Court said:\n<\/p>\n
“What is contemplated is an asset in the
\nacquisition of which it is possible to envisage
\na cost.  The intent goes to the nature and
\ncharacter of the asset, that it is an asset which
\npossesses the inherent quality of being
\navailable on the expenditure of money to a
\nperson seeking to acquire it.  It is immaterial
\nthat although the asset belongs to such a
\nclass it may, on the facts of a certain case, be
\nacquired without the payment of money.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn other words, an asset which is capable of acquisition at
\na cost would be included within the provisions pertaining to the
\nhead ‘capital gains’ as opposed to assets in the acquisition of
\nwhich no cost at all can be conceived. The principle
\npropounded in Srinivasa Setty has been followed by several
\nHigh Courts with reference to the consideration received on
\nsurrender of tenancy rights. [See: Among others  Bawa Shiv
\nCharan Singh Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1984)
\n149 ITR.29; The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mangtu Ram
\nJaipuria (1991) 192 ITR 533(Cal.); Commissioner of Income
\nTax Vs. Joy Ice Cream (Bang) Pvt. Ltd. (1993) 2001 ITR
\n895(Kar.) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Markapakula
\nAgamma (1987) 165 ITR 386 (A.P.); Commissioner of Income
\nTax Vs. Merchandisers (P) Ltd. (1990) 182 ITR 107) (Ker.)] . In
\nall these decisions the several High Courts held that if the cost
\nof acquisition of tenancy rights cannot be determined, the
\nconsideration received by reason of surrender of such tenancy
\nrights could not be subjected to capital gains.
\n    According to a Circular issued by the Central Board of
\nDirect Taxes  it was to meet the situation created by the
\ndecision in Srinivasa Setty and the subsequent decisions of
\nthe High Court that  the Finance Act 1994 amended Section 55
\n(2) to provide that the cost of acquisition of inter-alia a tenancy
\nright would be taken as nil.  By this amendment, the judicial
\ninterpretation put on capital assets for the purposes of the
\nprovisions relating to capital gains was met. In other words the
\ncost of acquisition would be taken as determinable but the rate
\nwould be nil.\n<\/p>\n
The amendment took effect from 1st April 1995 and
\naccordingly applied in relation to the assessment year 1995-96
\nand subsequent years.  But till that amendment in 1995, and
\ntherefore covering the Assessment Year in question, the law as
\nperceived by the Department was that if the cost of acquisition
\nof a capital asset could not in fact be determined, the transfer of
\nsuch capital asset would not attract capital gains.  The
\nappellant now says that Srinivasa Setty’s case would have no
\napplication  because a tenancy right cannot be equated with
\ngoodwill.  As far as goodwill is concerned, it is impossible to
\nspecify a date on which the acquisition may be said to have
\ntaken place.  It is built up over a period of time.  Diverse factors
\nwhich cannot be quantified in monetary terms may go into the
\nbuilding of the goodwill, some tangible some intangible.   It is
\ncontended that a tenancy right is not a capital asset of such a
\nnature that the actual cost on acquisition could not be
\nascertained as a natural legal corollary.
\nWe agree.   A tenancy right is acquired with reference to
\na particular date.  It is also possible that it may be  acquired at a
\ncost.  It is ultimately a question of fact.  In A.R. Krishnamurthy
\nand Ors. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras (1989)
\n176 ITR 417   this Court held that it cannot be said conceptually
\nthat there is no cost of acquisition of the grant of the lease. It
\nheld that the cost of  acquisition of leasehold rights can be
\ndetermined.  In the present case however,  the Department’s
\nstand before the High Court was  that the cost of acquisition of
\nthe tenancy was incapable of being ascertained. In view of the
\nstand taken by the Department before the High Court, we
\nuphold the decision of the High Court on this issue.
\n\tWere it not for the inability to compute the cost of
\nacquisition under Section 48,  there is, as we have said,  no
\ndoubt that a monthly tenancy or leasehold right is a capital
\nasset and that the amount receipt on its surrender was a capital
\nreceipt.  But because we have held that Section 45 cannot be
\napplied, it is not open to the Department to impose tax on such
\ncapital receipt by the assessee  under any other Section. This
\nCourt, as early as in 1957 had, in United Commercial Bank
\nLtd. V. Commissioner of Income Tax Ltd., West Bengal<\/a>
\n(1957) 32 ITR 688, held that the heads of income provided for
\nin the Sections of the Income Tax Act, 1922 are mutually
\nexclusive and where any item of income falls specifically under
\none head, it has to be charged under that head and no other.
\nIn other words, income derived from different sources falling
\nunder a specific head has to be computed for the purposes of
\ntaxation in the manner provided by the appropriate Section and
\nno other. It has been further held by this Court in East India
\nHousing and Land Development Trust Ltd. V.
\nCommissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal<\/a> (1961) 42 ITR
\n49  that if the income from a source falls within a specific head,
\nthe fact that it may indirectly be covered by an another  head
\nwill not make the income taxable under the latter head. (See
\nalso: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Chugandas and
\nCo.(1964) 55 ITR 17).\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 14 of the Income Tax Act 1961 as it stood at the
\nrelevant time similarly provided that “all income shall for the
\npurposes of charge of income tax and computation of total
\nincome be classified under six heads of income,” namely;
\n(A)\tSalaries;\n<\/p>\n
(B)\tInterest on Securities;\n<\/p>\n
(C)\tIncome from house property;\n<\/p>\n
(D)\tProfits and gains and business or profession;
\n(E)\tCapital gains;\n<\/p>\n
(F)\tIncome from other sources unless otherwise, provided in
\nthe Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 56 provides for the chargeability of income of
\nevery kind which has not to be excluded from the total income
\nunder the Act, only if it is not chargeable to income tax under
\nany of the heads specified in Section 14 items A to E.
\nTherefore, if the income is included under any one of the
\nheads, it cannot be brought to tax under the residuary
\nprovisions of Section  56.\n<\/p>\n
          There is no dispute that a tenancy right is a capital asset
\nthe surrender of which would attract Section 45 so that the
\nvalue received would be a capital receipt and assessable if at
\nall only under Item E of Section 14.   That being so, it cannot be
\ntreated as a casual or non recurring receipt under Section 10(3)
\nand be subjected to tax under Section 56.  The argument of the
\nappellant  that even if the income cannot be chargeable under
\nSection 45, because of the inapplicability of the computation
\nprovided under Section 48, it could still impose tax under the
\nresiduary head is thus unacceptable.   If the income cannot be
\ntaxed under Section 45, it cannot be taxed at all.  (See: S.G.
\nMercantile Corporation (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income
\nTax, Calcutta (1972) 83 ITR 700).\n<\/p>\n
Furthermore, it would be illogical and  against the
\nlanguage of Section 56 to hold that  everything that is exempted
\nfrom capital gains by statute could be taxed as a casual or non
\nrecurring receipt under Section 10(3) read with Section 56. We
\nare fortified in our view by a similar argument being rejected in
\nNalinikant Ambalal Mody  Vs. S.A.L. Narayan Row CIT
\n(1966) 61 ITR 428,432,435.\n<\/p>\n
The appeal is accordingly dismissed without any order as
\nto costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005 Author: R Pal Bench: Ruma Pal, Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2335 of 2003 PETITIONER: Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai RESPONDENT: D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31\/01\/2005 BENCH: […]<\/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-86385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005\" \/>\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=\"2005-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-13T03:44:11+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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T03:44:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005\"},\"wordCount\":2012,\"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\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-01-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-13T03:44:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005\"}]},{\"@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":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-13T03:44:11+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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005","datePublished":"2005-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T03:44:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005"},"wordCount":2012,"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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-01-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-13T03:44:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-d-p-sandu-bros-chembur-p-ltd-on-31-january-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, … vs D.P. Sandu Bros. Chembur (P) Ltd on 31 January, 2005"}]},{"@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\/86385","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=86385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}