{"id":95435,"date":"2008-04-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-07-21T09:41:01","modified_gmt":"2018-07-21T04:11:01","slug":"malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income … on 10 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income … on 10 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n
Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5420-5423 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nMalayala Manorama Co. Ltd.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCommissioner of Income Tax,Trivandrum\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/04\/2008\n\nBENCH:\nAshok Bhan & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
Dalveer Bhandari, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese appeals are directed against the judgment
\npassed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at
\nErnakulam on 13th November, 2001 whereby the High
\nCourt has decided Income Tax Reference Nos.245, 259,
\n289 and 293 of 1999 by a common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe main question which arose for consideration
\nbefore the Court below was:\n<\/p>\n
Whether in respect of a company
\nconsistently charging depreciation in its
\nbooks of account at the rates prescribed in
\nthe Income-tax Rules, the Income Tax
\nOfficer has jurisdiction under section 115J
\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 to rework net
\nprofits by substituting the rates prescribed
\nin Schedule XIV of the Companies Act,
\n1956?<\/p>\n
\tThe concept of a minimum tax on zero tax
\ncompanies was introduced under section 80VVA of the
\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the
\n1961 Act)  when a ceiling was placed on allowances by
\nthe Finance Act, 1983 with effect from the Assessment
\nYear 1984-85.  However, the allowances unabsorbed,
\nbecause of the restriction imposed by the ceiling, were
\ncarried forward, so that they could be absorbed in a
\nlater year, if adequate profits are available.  Section
\n80VVA was dropped from the statute by the Finance
\nAct, 1987, with effect from A.Y. 1988-89, when
\nreplaced Book Profits Tax by section 115J of the 1961
\nAct.   But it was materially different in one respect that
\nno part of the tax on book profits could be adjusted
\nagainst tax on regular assessment at a future date.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt may be pertinent to mention that the Book
\nProfit Tax  was  abandoned  with  effect from A.Y.
\n1990-91 by the Finance Act, 1990.  It was re-
\nintroduced with a new name Minimum Alternate Tax
\nwith effect from A.Y. 1997-98 under section 115JA.\n<\/p>\n
     For ready reference, we deem it appropriate to
\nreproduce section 115J of the 1961 Act as under:
\n 115-J. Special provisions relating to
\ncertain companies. (1) Notwithstanding
\nanything contained in any other provision of
\nthis Act, where in the case of an assessee
\nbeing a company other than a company
\nengaged in the business of generation or
\ndistribution of electricity, the total income,
\nas computed under this Act in respect of
\nany previous year relevant to the
\nassessment year commencing on or after the
\n1st day of April, 1988 but before the 1st day
\nof April, 1991 (hereafter in this section
\nreferred to as the relevant previous year) is
\nless than thirty per cent of its book profit,
\nthe total income of such assessee chargeable
\nto tax for the relevant previous year shall be
\ndeemed to be an amount equal to thirty per
\ncent of such book profit.\n<\/p>\n
(1-A) Every assessee, being a company,
\nshall, for the purposes of this section,
\nprepare its profit and loss account for the
\nrelevant previous year in accordance with
\nthe provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule
\nVI to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation.For the purposes of this
\nsection, book profit means the net profit as
\nshown in the profit and loss account for the
\nrelevant previous year prepared under sub-
\nsection (1-A), as increased by\n<\/p>\n
(a) \tthe amount of income tax paid or
\npayable, and the provision
\ntherefor; or\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tthe amounts carried to any
\nreserves other than the reserves
\nspecified in Section 80-HHD or
\nsub-section (1) of Section 33-AC,
\nby whatever name called; or\n<\/p>\n
(c) \tthe amount or amounts set aside
\nto provisions made for meeting
\nliabilities other than ascertained
\nliabilities; or\n<\/p>\n
(d) \tthe amount by way of provision
\nfor losses of subsidiary
\ncompanies; or\n<\/p>\n
(e) \tthe amount or amounts of
\ndividends paid or proposed; or\n<\/p>\n
(f) \tthe amount or amounts of
\nexpenditure relatable to any
\nincome to which any of the
\nprovisions of Chapter III applies;
\nor\n<\/p>\n
 (g) \tthe amount withdrawn from the
\nreserve account under Section
\n80-HHD, where it has been
\nutilised for any purpose other
\nthan those referred to in sub-\n<\/p>\n
section (4) of that section; or\n<\/p>\n
(h) \tthe amount credited to the
\nreserve account under Section
\n80-HHD, to the extent that
\namount has not been utilised
\nwithin the period specified in sub-
\nsection (4) of that section;\n<\/p>\n
(ha) the amount deemed to be the
\nprofits under sub-section (3) of
\nSection 33-AC;\n<\/p>\n
if any amount referred to in clauses (a) to (f)
\nis debited or, as the case may be, the
\namount referred to in clauses (g) and (h) is
\nnot credited to the profit and loss account,
\nand as reduced by,\n<\/p>\n
(i) \tthe amount withdrawn from
\nreserves other than the reserves
\nspecified in Section 80-HHD or
\nprovisions, if any such amount is
\ncredited to the profit and loss
\naccount:\n<\/p>\n
     Provided that, where this
\nsection is applicable to an
\nassessee in any previous year
\n(including the relevant previous
\nyear), the amount withdrawn from
\nreserves created or provisions
\nmade in a previous year relevant
\nto the assessment year
\ncommencing on or after the 1st
\nday of April, 1988 shall not be
\nreduced from the book profit
\nunless the book profit of such
\nyear has been increased by those
\nreserves or provisions (out of
\nwhich the said amount was
\nwithdrawn) under this
\nExplanation; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) \tthe amount of income to which
\nany of the provisions of Chapter
\nIII applies, if any such amount is
\ncredited to the profit and loss
\naccount; or\n<\/p>\n
(iii) \tthe amounts as arrived at after
\nincreasing the net profit by the
\namounts referred to in clauses (a)
\nto (f) and reducing the net profit
\nby the amounts referred to in
\nclauses (i) and (ii) attributable to
\nthe business, the profits from
\nwhich are eligible for deduction
\nunder Section 80-HHC or Section
\n80-HHD; so, however, that such
\namounts are computed in the
\nmanner specified in sub-section
\n(3) or sub-section (3-A) of Section
\n80-HHC or sub-section (3) of
\nSection 80-HHD, as the case may
\nbe; or\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) \tthe amount of the loss or the
\namount of depreciation which
\nwould be required to be set off
\nagainst the profit of the relevant
\nprevious year as if the provisions
\nof clause (b) of the first proviso to
\nsub-section (1) of Section 205 of
\nthe Companies Act, 1956 (1 of
\n1956), are applicable.\n<\/p>\n
(2) \tNothing contained in sub-section (1)
\nshall affect the determination of the
\namounts in relation to the relevant previous
\nyear to be carried forward to the subsequent
\nyear or years under the provisions of sub-
\nsection (2) of Section 32 or sub-section (3) of
\nSection 32-A or clause (ii) of sub-section (1)
\nof Section 72 or Section 73 or Section 74 or
\nsub-section (3) of Section 74-A or sub-
\nsection (3) of Section 80-J.<\/p>\n
     A new Chapter XII-B containing section 115J was
\ninserted by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from Ist
\nApril, 1988.  This new section made provisions for levy
\nof minimum tax on book profits of certain companies.
\nThe scope and effect of these provisions have been
\nelaborated in the following portion of the departmental
\ncircular No.495, dated 22nd September, 1987:-
\n“New provisions to levy minimum tax on
\n“book profit” of certain companies:
\n36.1 It is an accepted cannon of taxation to
\nlevy tax on the basis of ability to pay.
\nHowever, as a result of various tax
\nconcessions and incentives certain
\ncompanies making huge profits and also
\ndeclaring substantial dividends, have been
\nmanaging their affairs in such a way as to
\navoid payment of income-tax.\n<\/p>\n
36.2 Accordingly, as a measure of equity,
\nsection 115J has been introduced by the
\nFinance Act. By virtue of the new provisions,
\nin the case of a company whose total income
\nas computed under the provisions of the
\nIncome-tax Act is less then 30% of the book
\nprofit computed under the section, the total
\nincome chargeable to tax will be 30 % of the
\nbook profit as computed. For the purposes
\nof section 115J, book profits will be the net
\nprofit as shown in the profit and loss
\naccount prepared in accordance with the
\nprovisions of Schedule VI to the Companies
\nAct, 1956, after certain adjustments. The
\nnet profit as above will be increased by
\nincome-tax paid or payable or the provisions
\nthereof, amount carried to any reserve,
\nprovision made for liabilities other than
\nascertained liabilities, provision for losses of
\nsubsidiary companies, etc., if the amounts
\nare debited to the profit and loss account.
\nLiabilities relating to expenditure which has
\nbeen incurred or which has accrued in
\nrespect of expenses which are otherwise
\ndeductible in computing income will not be
\nadded back. The amount so arrived at is to
\nbe reduced by-\n<\/p>\n
(i) \tamounts withdrawn from
\nreserves, if any such amount is
\ncredited to the profit and loss
\naccount;\n<\/p>\n
(ii) \tthe amount of income to which
\nany of the provisions of Chapter
\nIII applies, if any such amount is
\ncredited to the profit and loss
\naccount; and\n<\/p>\n
(iii) \tthe amount of any brought
\nforward losses or unabsorbed
\ndepreciation whichever is less as
\ncomputed under the provisions of
\nsection 205(1)(b) of the
\nCompanies Act, 1956, for the
\npurposes of declaration of
\ndividends. Section 205 of the
\nCompanies Act requires every
\ncompany desirous of declaring
\ndividend to provide for
\ndepreciation for the relevant
\naccounting year. Further, the
\ncompany is required under
\nsection 205 to set off against the
\nprofit of the relevant accounting
\nyear, the depreciation debited to
\nthe profit and loss account of any
\nearlier year(s) or loss whichever is
\nless.\n<\/p>\n
 36.3 Section 115J, therefore, involves two
\nprocesses. Firstly, an assessing authority
\nhas to determine the income of the company
\nunder the provisions of the Income-tax Act.
\nSecondly, the book profit is to be worked out
\nin accordance with the Explanation to
\nsection 115J(1) and it is to be seen whether
\nthe income determined under the first
\nprocess is less than 30 per cent of the book
\nprofit.  Section 115J would be invoked if the
\nincome determined under the first process is
\nless than 30 per cent of the book profit.<\/p>\n
     The whole purpose of section 115J was to tax a
\ncompany which had no taxable income, but showed a
\nbook profit. For instance, a company which adopted
\nthe method of straight-line depreciation (as it is
\nentitled to do under the Companies Act, 1956
\n(hereinafter referred to as the 1956 Act), or a
\ncompany which had not debited to its profit and loss
\naccount, the capital expenditure on scientific research
\nand development which is fully deductible under
\nsection 35 of the 1961 Act would be assessed to tax
\nunder this section.\n<\/p>\n
     It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that
\nin the profit & loss account the assessee has debited
\ndepreciation at the rates prescribed by the Income-tax
\nRules, 1962.  This has been the consistent practice of
\nthe assessee throughout.  Section 211(2) of the 1956
\nAct mandates that every profit and loss account of a
\ncompany shall give a true and fair view of the profit or
\nloss of the company for the financial year and shall
\ncomply with the requirements of Parts-II of Schedule
\nVI so far as they are applicable thereto. The accounts
\nof the assessee for the relevant assessment years
\n1988-89 and 1989-90 are audited under section 227 of
\nthe 1956 Act.  The audit report confirms that the
\naccounts of the assessee represent a true and fair
\nview.  The accounts have further been passed and
\napproved by the general body of shareholders at the
\nAnnual General Meeting.  The said accounts have been
\nfiled with the Registrar of Companies and no objections
\nhave been raised in relation to them.\n<\/p>\n
     It was further submitted that under section 115J
\nthe assessee has the obligation to prepare his profit
\nand loss account as per Parts-II and III of Schedule VI
\nto the 1956 Act.  No dispute has been raised at any
\nstage of the proceedings by the revenue that the profit
\n& loss account of the assessee is not in compliance
\nwith the provisions of the 1956 Act, particularly
\nSchedule VI, Parts II and III.  In Schedule VI, there is
\nno reference to sections 205 and 350 or Schedule XIV
\nto the 1956 Act.\n<\/p>\n
     The appellant referred to Note 3 (iv) to Part II
\n(Requirements as to profit and loss account) of
\nSchedule VI to the 1956 Act which reads as under:
\nThe amount provided for depreciation,
\nrenewals or diminution in value of fixed
\nassets.\n<\/p>\n
If such provision is not made by means of a
\ndepreciation charge, the method adopted for
\nmaking such provision.\n<\/p>\n
If no provision is made for depreciation, the
\nfact that no provision has been made shall
\nbe stated and the quantum of arrears of
\ndepreciation computed in accordance with
\nsection 205(2) of the Act shall be disclosed
\nby way of a note.<\/p>\n
This makes it clear that Schedule VI to the 1956 Act
\ndoes not create any obligation on a company to provide
\nfor any depreciation much less provides for
\ndepreciation as per Schedule XIV to the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     It was also submitted by the appellant that it is a
\nlong-standing accepted position by the Company Law
\ndepartment that the rates of depreciation prescribed in
\nSchedule XIV are the minimum rates (See: Circular
\nNo.2 of 1989 dated 7th March, 1989).  Paragraph 1 of
\nthe said Circular reads as under:
\n1.\tCan higher rates of depreciation be
\ncharged?  – It is stated that Schedule XIV
\nclearly states that a company should
\ndisclose depreciation rates if they are
\ndifferent from the principal rates specified in
\nthe Schedule.  On this basis, it is suggested
\nthat a company can charge depreciation at
\nrates which are lower or higher than those
\nspecified in Schedule XIV.\n<\/p>\n
It may be clarified that the rates as
\ncontained in Schedule XIV should be viewed
\nas the minimum rates and, therefore, a
\ncompany shall not be permitted to charge
\ndepreciation at rates lower than those
\nspecified in the Schedule in relation to
\nassets purchased after the date of
\napplicability of the Schedule.<\/p>\n
Moreover, note 5 of Schedule XIV contemplates that
\nrates may be different from the rates specified in the
\nsaid Schedule. This note reads as under:
\n5.\tThe following information should also
\nbe disclosed in the accounts:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tdepreciation methods used; and<\/p>\n
(ii)\tdepreciation rates or the useful lives of
\nthe assets, if they are different from the
\nprincipal rates, specified in the
\nSchedule.<\/p>\n
     It was submitted by the learned counsel on behalf
\nof the appellant that this case is squarely covered by a
\nthree-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Apollo
\nTyres Ltd. etc. v. Commissioner of Income Tax,
\nKochi etc. (2002) 9 SCC 1.  In this view of the matter,
\nwe deem it proper to examine the Apollo Tyress case
\nin detail.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Apollo Tyres (supra), this Court examined the
\nobject of introducing section 115J in the 1961 Act.
\nThe Court relied on the budget speech of the then
\nHonble Finance Minister of India made in the
\nParliament while introducing the said section. The
\nrelevant portion of the speech is reproduced as under:\n<\/p>\n
    It is only fair and proper that the
\nprosperous should pay at least some tax.
\nThe phenomenon of so-called zero-tax
\nhighly profitable companies deserves
\nattention. In 1983, a new Section 80-VVA
\nwas inserted in the Act so that all profitable
\ncompanies pay some tax. This does not
\nseem to have helped and is being
\nwithdrawn. I now propose to introduce a
\nprovision whereby every company will have
\nto pay a minimum corporate tax on the
\nprofits declared by it in its own accounts.
\nUnder this new provision, a company will
\npay tax on at least 30% of its book profit. In
\nother words, a domestic widely held
\ncompany will pay tax of at least 15% of its
\nbook profit. This measure will yield a
\nrevenue gain of approximately Rs.75 crores.<\/p>\n
The Court held that the purpose of introducing this
\nsection was that the Income Tax Authorities were
\nunable to bring certain companies within the net of
\nincome tax because these companies were adjusting
\ntheir accounts in such a manner as to attract no tax or
\nvery little tax.  It is with a view to bring such of these
\ncompanies within the tax net that section 115J was
\nintroduced in the 1961 Act with a deeming provision
\nwhich makes the company liable to pay tax on at least
\n30% of its book profits as shown in its own account.
\nFor the said purpose, section 115J makes the income
\nreflected in the companies books of accounts as the
\ndeemed income for the purpose of assessing the tax.  If
\nwe examine the said provision in the above
\nbackground, we notice that the use of the words in
\naccordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of
\nSchedule VI to the Companies Act was made for the
\nlimited purpose of empowering the assessing authority
\nto rely upon the authentic statement of accounts of the
\ncompany.  While so looking into the accounts of the
\ncompany, an Assessing Officer under the Income Tax
\nAct has to accept the authenticity of the accounts with
\nreference to the provisions of the Companies Act which
\nobligates the company to maintain its account in a
\nmanner provided by the Companies Act and the same
\nto be scrutinized and certified by statutory auditors
\nand will have to be approved by the company in its
\ngeneral meeting and thereafter to be filed before the
\nRegistrar of Companies who has a statutory obligation
\nalso to examine and satisfy that the accounts of the
\ncompany are maintained in accordance with the
\nrequirements of the Companies Act.  In spite of all
\nthese procedures contemplated under the provisions of
\nthe Companies Act, the Court observed that it is
\ndifficult to accept the argument of the Revenue that it
\nis still open to the Assessing Officer to rescrutinize this
\naccount and satisfy himself that these accounts have
\nbeen maintained in accordance with the provisions of
\nthe Companies Act.  The Court categorically held that:\n<\/p>\n
     The Assessing Officer while computing
\nthe income under Section 115-J has only
\nthe power of examining whether the books of
\naccount are certified by the authorities
\nunder the Companies Act as having been
\nproperly maintained in accordance with the
\nCompanies Act. The Assessing Officer
\nthereafter has the limited power of making
\nincreases and reductions as provided for in
\nthe Explanation to the said section. To put it
\ndifferently, the Assessing Officer does not
\nhave the jurisdiction to go behind the net
\nprofit shown in the profit and loss account
\nexcept to the extent provided in the
\nExplanation to Section 115-J.<\/p>\n
     Mr. Joseph Vellapally, learned senior counsel
\nappearing on behalf of the appellant reiterated that
\nthis case is fully covered by detailed reasoning given by
\nthis Court in the case of Apollo Tyres.  He further
\nsubmitted that the reasoning of this case has been
\naccepted in a large number of judgments of the High
\nCourts.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Vellapally placed reliance on a division bench
\njudgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in
\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Sona Woolen Mills
\nPvt. Ltd.<\/a> (2007) 160 Taxman 22 and submitted that in
\nthis case also the assessee had provided for
\ndepreciation in its profit & loss account by adopting
\nthe rates prescribed in the Income-tax Rules.  The
\nAssessing Officer claimed that the depreciation for the
\npurposes of section 115J was permissible as per
\nSchedule XIV to the Companies Act.  The High Court
\nrelying upon the decision in Apollo tyres rejected the
\nview taken inter alia by the Kerala High Court in
\nMalayala Manorama (2002) 253 ITR 378.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Vellapally also submitted that the respondent
\nrevenue has accepted the judgment delivered by the
\nHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana in the aforesaid
\njudgment and did not challenge the same by filing
\nSpecial Leave Petition before this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Vellapally has also drawn our attention to the
\ndivision bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in
\nKinetic Motors v. Deputy Commissioner of Income
\nTax (2003) 262 ITR 33 and submitted that in this case
\nthe Bombay High Court relied on the said judgment of
\nApollo Tyres and held the issue in favour of the
\nassessee.   In this case, the Division Bench of the
\nBombay High Court observed as under:\n<\/p>\n
     The short question that arises for
\nconsideration in this tax appeal is whether it
\nis open to the Assessing Officer to make
\nadjustment to the book profits beyond what
\nis authorised by the definition given in
\nExplanation to Section 115J of the Income-
\ntax Act, if the accounts are prepared and
\ncertified to be in accordance with Parts II
\nand III of Schedule VI to the Companies Act,
\n1956. In the case of Apollo Tyres Ltd. [2002]
\n255 JTR 273, the apex court held that while
\ncomputing the income under Section 115J
\nof the Income-tax Act, the Assessing Officer
\nhas only power to examine whether the
\nbooks of account were certified by the
\nauthorities under the Companies Act as
\nhaving been properly maintained in
\naccordance with the Companies Act. It is
\nfurther held that the Assessing Officer
\nthereafter has limited powers of making
\nincreases and reductions as provided for in
\nthe Explanation to the said section. The
\napex court further held that the Assessing
\nOfficer does not have the jurisdiction to go
\nbeyond the net profits shown in the profit
\nand loss account, except to the extent
\nprovided in the Explanation to Section 115J
\nof the Income-tax Act. In the instant case,
\nthe accounts maintained by the assessee are
\ncertified by the auditors. Under the
\ncircumstances, the book adjustment made
\nby the Assessing Officer being contrary to
\nthe decision of the apex court, question No.
\n1 is answered in the negative and in favour
\nof the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
     In view of our answer to question No.
\n1, question No. 2 becomes academic. It is
\nnot in dispute that under the Companies
\nAct, 1956, both straight line method and
\nwritten down value method are recognised.
\nTherefore, once the amount of depreciation
\nactually debited to the profit and loss
\naccount is certified by the auditors, then, as
\nper the decision of the apex court in the
\ncase of Apollo Tyres Ltd. [2002] 255 ITR 273,
\nquestion No. 2 has to be answered in the
\nnegative and in favour of the assessee.<\/p>\n
     Mr. Vellapally further placed reliance on
\nCommissioner of Income Tax v. Loyal Textiles Mills
\nLtd.<\/a> (2003) 261 ITR 307 (Madras), Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax v. Thiroo Arooran Sugars Ltd. (2006)
\n152 Taxman 344 (Madras), Cochin Cadalas (P) Ltd. v.
\nCommissioner of Income Tax (2002) 125 Taxman 47
\n(Kerala) and Rajasthan Spinning & Weaving Mills v.
\nDeputy Commissioner of Income Tax<\/a> (2006) 281 ITR
\n177 (Rajasthan).  All these judgments have been
\ndecided on the basis of the ratio of the decision of this
\nCourt in Apollo Tyres (supra).  He further submitted
\nthat the respondent revenue has accepted the
\ndecisions of the High Courts in all these cases and did
\nnot challenge the same by filing Special Leave Petitions
\nbefore this Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Vikram Gulati, learned counsel appearing on
\nbehalf of the respondent-Revenue submitted that in
\nthe instant case three questions were raised before the
\nHigh Court, one at the instance of the Revenue and
\ntwo questions at the instance of assessee.\n<\/p>\n
     The question raised by the revenue was:
\nWhether on the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, the tribunal was
\nright in upholding the order of the CIT
\n(Appeals) directing the assessing officer to
\nallow the claim of depreciation as per the
\nIncome Tax Rules for the purposes of
\ncomputing the book profit under section
\n115J of the Companies Act?<\/p>\n
     The questions raised by the assessee are as under:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tWhether on the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, the tribunal
\nwas justified in upholding the finding
\nof the CIT (Appeals) that the proceeding
\nof the assessing authority dated
\n09.10.2002, was a valid order under
\nsection 154 of the Income Tax Act?\n<\/p>\n
2.\tWhether on the facts and in the
\ncircumstances of the case, the tribunal
\nwas justified in law in upholding the
\ncomputation under section 115J
\nthrough the order passed on
\n09.10.1992?<\/p>\n
     Mr. Gulati submitted that the facts of this case
\nare that for the assessment years 1988-89, the
\nassessee filed a return declaring loss of Rs.1,12,293\/-
\nand claimed the refund of Rs.8,62,730\/- pre paid as
\ntax.  The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Asst.),
\nSpecial Range, Kottayam rejected the figures returned
\nby the assessee and assessed the total income at
\nRs.47,26,270\/- and imposed a tax of Rs.25,99,448\/-
\nas well as a surcharge of Rs.1,29,972\/- totaling
\nRs.27,29,420\/-.  After adjusting advance tax paid, as
\nwell as the TDS deducted, the Assessing Officer
\ncreated a total demand of Rs.26,83,327\/-.  It is
\nrelevant to mention here that since the provision of
\nsection 80VV stood deleted with effect from 01.4.1988
\nthe claim made under that section was rejected.\n<\/p>\n
     It was submitted that Chapter XII-B containing
\nspecial provisions relating to certain companies was
\nintroduced in the Income Tax Act by the Finance Act
\n1987 with effect from 01.4.1988.  From the
\nassessment year 1988-89, section 115J was
\nintroduced into the 1961 Act, which replaced section
\n80VV of the Act. Section 115J provided that where the
\ntotal income of a company as computed under the
\nIncome Tax Act in respect of any accounting year was
\nless than 30% of its book profit, as defined in the
\nexplanation, the total income of the company,
\nchargeable to tax, shall be deemed to be an amount
\nequal to 30% of such book profit.  The whole purpose
\nof this section was to tax a company, which has no
\ntaxable income, merely because it shows book profit.
\nBook profit as explained in this section meant the net
\nprofit as shown in the profit and loss account for the
\nrelevant previous year prepared under sub section (1A)
\nof section 115J as increased by the amounts referred
\nto in clauses (a) to (ha) of the Act.  It should be noted
\nthat the words prepared under sub-section (1A) were
\nintroduced by the Finance Act, 1989, with effect from
\n01.4.1989.\n<\/p>\n
     Sub-section (1A) to section 115J reads as follows:
\n     Every assessee, being a company,
\nshall, for the purposes of this section,
\nprepare its profit and loss account for the
\nrelevant previous year, in accordance with
\nthe provisions of Part II, and III of Schedule
\nVI to the Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956).<\/p>\n
     This sub-section (1A) to section 115J of the 1961
\nAct would have application for the A.Y. 1989-90, which
\nis the subject matter of ITR Nos.289 and 293 of 1999.
\nBut would have no application to the A.Y. 1988-89,
\nwhich is the subject matter of ITR Nos.245 and 259 of
\n1999.\n<\/p>\n
     Explanation (ha) (iv) to section 115J, which would
\nbe relevant to both assessment years 1988-89, as well
\nas 1989-90 and introduced w.e.f. 01.4.1989 reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
(ha). The amount deemed to be the profits
\nunder sub-section (3) of section 33AC:\n<\/p>\n
     if any amount referred to in clauses (a)
\nto (f) is debited or, as the case may be, the
\namount referred to in clauses (g) and (h) is
\nnot credited to the profits and loss account,
\nas as reduced by.  <\/p>\n
     (i)\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
     (ii)\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
     (iii)\txxx\t\txxx\t\txxx<\/p>\n
     (iv) the amount of the loss or the
\namount of depreciation which would be
\nrequired to be set off against the profit of the
\nrelevant previous year as if the provisions of
\nclause (b) of the first proviso to sub-section
\n(1) of section 205 of the Companies Act,
\n1956 (1 of 1956) are applicable.<\/p>\n
     Mr. Gulati further submitted that before the High
\nCourt, it was argued by counsel for the revenue that
\nsection 205 of the Companies Act, 1956 has been
\nlegislatively incorporated into the Income Tax Act for
\nthe purposes of section 115J and since this is a
\nlegislation by incorporation, the said provision of the
\nCompanies Act, 1956 has to be applied as indicated by
\nthat provision in the Companies Act.  It was also
\npointed out that in section 205 of the Companies Act,
\nit has been provided that for the purposes of
\ncalculating depreciation under section 205(1), the
\nsame could be provided to the extent specified under
\nsection 350 of the Companies Act.  A reference to
\nsection 350 of the Companies Act would show that the
\namount of depreciation to be deducted shall be the
\namount, calculated with reference to the written down
\nvalue of the assets, as shown by the books of the
\ncompany at the end of the financial year expiring at
\nthe commencement of the Act or immediately
\nthereafter and at the end of each subsequent financial
\nyear and the rates specified in Schedule XIV to the
\nCompanies Act.  Therefore, according to the revenue,
\nthe calculation of depreciation in terms of the
\nCompanies Act and Schedule XIV thereof becomes a
\nmust, while assessing an assessee under section 115J
\nof the Income Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Gulati further submitted that the question
\nraised in the case of Sona Woolen Mills Pvt. Ltd.
\n(supra) shows that the assessee was trying to claim
\ndepreciation as per Income Tax Rules on the ground
\nthat the same was based on the views expressed by the
\nthen chairman of the CBDT in a departmental
\npublication.   It is clear that the views expressed by the
\nChairman of the CBDT cannot override the Act and
\nhave clearly to be rejected in case they are not
\nconsistent with the Act.  He submitted that the Kerala
\nHigh Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v.
\nDynamic Orthopaedics Pvt. Ltd. (2002) 257 ITR 446
\nas well as Malayala Manorama (supra) and the M.P.
\nHigh Court in the case of Commissioner of Income
\nTax v. Vandana Rolling Mills Ltd.<\/a> (1998) 234 ITR
\n693 have all held that for the purposes of section 115J
\nof the Act, depreciation could not be calculated as per
\nprovisions of the Income Tax Rules.  Only the Gujarat
\nHigh Court in the case of Deputy Commissioner of
\nIncome Tax v. Vardhman Fabrics (P) Ltd. (2002) 254
\nITR 431 has upheld the view that the circular of the
\nCompany Law Board laid down only minimum
\ndepreciation for the purposes of distribution of the
\ndividend and the company could decide to give a
\nhigher depreciation.  Mr. Gulati also contended that
\nthe Punjab & Haryana High Court has preferred to
\nfollow the minority view and has ignored the majority
\nview taken by two High Courts, namely the Kerala
\nHigh Court as well as the M.P. High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Gulati also relied upon the case of J.K.
\nIndustries Ltd. v. Union of India (2008) 297 ITR 176
\n(SC).  On proper analysis of the said case, we find that
\nthis case also does not help the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties
\nat length and carefully perused the written
\nsubmissions filed by them.  In our considered opinion,
\nthe controversy involved in this case is no longer res
\nintegra.  A three Judge Bench of this Court in Apollo
\nTyres (supra) has clearly interpreted section 115J of
\nthe 1961 Act.  There is no scope for any further
\ndiscussion.\n<\/p>\n
     Consequently, the appeals are allowed and the
\nimpugned order of the High Court is accordingly set
\naside.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we
\ndirect the parties to bear their own costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income … on 10 April, 2008 Author: D Bhandari Bench: Ashok Bhan, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5420-5423 of 2002 PETITIONER: Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd. RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Income Tax,Trivandrum DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/04\/2008 BENCH: Ashok Bhan & Dalveer Bhandari JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/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-95435","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMalayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 April, 2008 - 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\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008\" \/>\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=\"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-21T04:11:01+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income … on 10 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T04:11:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5041,\"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\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008\",\"name\":\"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-21T04:11:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income … on 10 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":"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 April, 2008 - 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\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-21T04:11:01+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income … on 10 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T04:11:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008"},"wordCount":5041,"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\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008","name":"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income ... on 10 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-21T04:11:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/malayala-manorama-co-ltd-vs-commissioner-of-income-on-10-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Malayala Manorama Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income … on 10 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\/95435","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=95435"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/95435\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95435"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=95435"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=95435"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}