{"id":98104,"date":"2000-08-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-08-02T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000"},"modified":"2018-09-08T19:21:45","modified_gmt":"2018-09-08T13:51:45","slug":"commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Durga Engineering And Foundry &#8230; on 3 August, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Durga Engineering And Foundry &#8230; on 3 August, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Sp Bharucha, U.C. Banerjee, N. Santosh Hegde<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  4089 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDURGA ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/08\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nSP BHARUCHA &amp; U.C. BANERJEE &amp; N. SANTOSH HEGDE\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>2000 Supp(2) SCR 135<\/p>\n<p>The following order of the Court was delivered :\n<\/p>\n<p>The assessment years in question are 1987-88 and 1988-89, For these<br \/>\nassessment years, the Income Tax Officer made additions to the income of<br \/>\nthe assessee, which is a partnership firm of sums which, in his view,<br \/>\nrepresented the unexplained cash credits in the name of partners of the<br \/>\nfirm. The assessments were upheld by the Commissioner in appeal. The Income<br \/>\nTax Appellate Tribunal, on 7th November, 1994, allowed the assessee&#8217;s<br \/>\nappeal and, setting aside the assessment orders, restored the matters to<br \/>\nthe file of the Assessing Officer, directing him to pass a fresh order<br \/>\nafter allowing the assessee the opportunity to support the documents Chat<br \/>\nit had earlier filed before him. Neither party sought to file any reference<br \/>\napplication there against but the assessee filed an application before the<br \/>\nTribunal under Section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 seeking to<br \/>\nrectify it on the basis that a contention mat it had raised, had not been<br \/>\ndecided. On 4th January, 1995, the Tribunal allowed the rectification<br \/>\napplication. It noted that the assessee&#8217;s objection was that the assessment<br \/>\non account of the credits should be made in the hands of the partners of<br \/>\nthe assessee as they had made payments by cheque. The Tribunal observed<br \/>\nthat this issue had not been decided by it and mat there was sufficient<br \/>\nforce in it Accordingly, it rectified &#8220;the error by disposing of the<br \/>\npreliminary issues raised by the assessee. We accordingly amend our order<br \/>\nand direct that the additions made by the Assessing Officer amounting to<br \/>\nRs, 5,00,851 and Rs. 85,700 be deleted from their income for assessment<br \/>\nyears 1987-88 and 1988-89. As observed, the Department may investigate the<br \/>\nmatter in the hands of the partners&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Revenue filed an application before the Tribunal seeking reference of<br \/>\ntwo questions that arose out of the order on the rectification application.<br \/>\nThe questions read thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the<br \/>\nTribunal&#8217; was justified in holding that the provisions of section 68 of the<br \/>\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable to the facts of the present case?\n<\/p>\n<p>2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal<br \/>\nwas justified in law in deleting the additions of Rs, 5,00,851 and Rs.<br \/>\n85,700 made by the A.O. u\/s. 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, representing<br \/>\nthe unexplained cash credits in the accounts of the partners? The Tribunal<br \/>\ndeclined to make the reference on the basis that these were questions of<br \/>\nfact. The Revenue then made an application to the High Court under Section<br \/>\n256(2) of the Income Tax Act and, by the order under challenge, the same<br \/>\nwas dismissed. The order under challenge followed an earlier decision of<br \/>\nthe High Court, in the case of Popular Engineering Co. v. Commissioner of<br \/>\nIncome Tax, M.P., (140 I.T.R. 398), in which it had been held that a<br \/>\nreference against an order of rectification under Section 254(2) was not<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p>In the earlier Judgment, the High Court said :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The language used in s.256(l) shows that the order contemplated under<br \/>\ns.256(T) is the order passed under s.254 of the Act. Under s.254(1) the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal passes an order on the appeal filed by the assessee or<br \/>\nthe Revenue. This order may be amended under s. 254 (2) of the Act with a<br \/>\nview to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record. If, however, the<br \/>\napplication for rectification is dismissed, there is no amendment of the<br \/>\norder passed under s.254(l) of the Act. Since no reference in the instant<br \/>\ncase was sought in respect of the appellate order passed under s.254(1), we<br \/>\nare of the view that no reference from the order rejecting an application<br \/>\nfor rectification of any mistake is tenable under s.256(1) of the Act. The<br \/>\nposition obviously would have been different had the Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\namended its appellate order with a view to rectifying any mistake from the<br \/>\nrecord. In that case the amended order could be a subject-matter of<br \/>\nreference under s.256(l) of the Act. But if the order is not amended and<br \/>\nthe application for rectification is dismissed, the only order which stands<br \/>\nis the order passed in appeal under s.254(l) of the Act and if no reference<br \/>\nhas been sought in respect of such order, the same becomes final in view of<br \/>\nthe language used in s.254(4) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 256 read thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;256. (1) The assessee or the Commissioner may, within sixty days of the<br \/>\ndate upon which he is served with notice of an order passed before the 1 st<br \/>\nday of October, 1998, under section 254, by application in the prescribed<br \/>\nform, accompanied where the application is made by the assessee by a fee of<br \/>\ntwo hundred rupees, require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High<br \/>\nCourt any question of law arising out of such order and, subject to the<br \/>\nother provisions contained in this section, the Appellate Tribunal shall,<br \/>\nwithin one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw<br \/>\nup a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court :\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the<br \/>\napplicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application<br \/>\nwithin the period hereinbefore specified, allow it to be presented within a<br \/>\nfurther period not exceeding thirty days.\n<\/p>\n<p>(2)  If, on an application made under sub-section (1), the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal refuses to state the erase on the ground that no question of law<br \/>\narises, the assesses or the Commissioner, as the case may be, may, within<br \/>\nsix months from the date on which he is served with notice of such refusal,<br \/>\napply to the High Court, and the High Court, may, if it is not satisfied<br \/>\nwith the correctness of the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, require the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal to state the case and to refer it, and on receipt of any<br \/>\nsuch requisition, the Appellate Tribunal shall state the case and refer it<br \/>\naccordingly.\n<\/p>\n<p>(3)  Where in the exercise of its powers under sub-section (2), the<br \/>\nAppellate Tribunal refuses to state a case which it has been required by<br \/>\nthe assessee to state, the assessee may, within thirty days from the date<br \/>\non which he receives notice of such refusal, withdraw his application, and,<br \/>\nif he does so, the fee paid shall be refunded.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 254, so far as it relevant, reads thus :\n<\/p>\n<p>254. (1) The Appellate Tribunal may, after giving both the parties to the<br \/>\nappeal an opportunity of being heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks<br \/>\nfit<\/p>\n<p>(2) The Appellate Tribunal may, at any time within four years from the date<br \/>\nof the order, with a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the<br \/>\nrecord, amend any order passed by it under sub-section (1), and shall make<br \/>\nsuch amendment if the mistake is brought to its notice by the assessee or<br \/>\nthe Assessing Officer :\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided that an amendment which has the effect of enhancing an assessment<br \/>\not reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee,<br \/>\nshall not be made under this sub-section unless the Appellate Tribunal has<br \/>\ngiven notice to the assessee of its intention to do so and has allowed the<br \/>\nassessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard :\n<\/p>\n<p>Provided further that any application filed by the assessee in this<br \/>\nsubsection on or after the 1st day of October, 1998, shall be accompanied<br \/>\nby a fee of fifty rupees.\n<\/p>\n<p>Section 256 empowers the assessee and the Revenue to &#8220;require the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal to refer to the High court any question of law arising out of an<br \/>\norder passed under Section 254.&#8221; Section 254( 1) stales that the Appellate<br \/>\nTribunal may, after giving both parties lo the appeal an opportunity of<br \/>\nbeing heard, pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit. It would appear<br \/>\nthat the High Court read Section 254(1) as referring only to orders passed<br \/>\nby the Tribunal on an appeal. We do not think that that would be a correct<br \/>\nway of reading Section 254( 1). Section 254( 1) empowers the Tribunal to<br \/>\npass .orders not only on an appeal before it but also upon such<br \/>\napplicaiions as arc made in the appeal and it specifies that, before doing<br \/>\nso, it shall hear both panics to the appeal. Section 254(2) permits the<br \/>\nTribunal to rectify any mistake apparent from the record and amend any<br \/>\norder passed by it under sub-section (1) within four years from the date of<br \/>\nthat order. The proviso requires it to give notice to the assessee before<br \/>\nenhancing an assessment and allow him a reasonable opportunity of being<br \/>\nheard. It will be seen, therefore, that the consequence of an order passed<br \/>\nin rectification under Section 254(2) could have serious financial<br \/>\nimplications for the assessee and it is unthinkable that the assessee<br \/>\nshould be left without a remedy, by way of a reference to the High Court,<br \/>\nif his assessment is erroneously increased in rectification proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is also to be noted that Section 256 contemplates the reference of a<br \/>\nquestion of law arising out of an order passed &#8220;under Section 254&#8221;: that is<br \/>\nto say, an order both under Section 254(I) and Section 254(2),<\/p>\n<p>In our view, therefore, under the provisions of Section 256, a reference<br \/>\nmay be made to the High Court of a question of law that arises upon any<br \/>\norder of the Tribunal. The view taken by the High Court in the earlier<br \/>\njudgment in Popular Engineering Co. and followed by it in She order under<br \/>\nchallenge is erroneous.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt in our mind, particularly having regard to the fact that<br \/>\nthe deletions of the additions that had been made by the assessing officer<br \/>\nwere made in rectification proceedings, that [he questions that were sought<br \/>\nto be referred were questions of law and that the High Court ought to have<br \/>\ncalled upon the Tribunal to refer the same to it for its consideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that pursuant to the order of<br \/>\n&#8216;the Tribunal in the rectification proceedings, the amounts of the<br \/>\nadditions had been assessed in the. hands of the partners of the assessee<br \/>\nand that, therefore, nothing survived for consideration insofar as the<br \/>\nassessee was concerned. It is unclear whether the assessments in the hands<br \/>\nof the partners were on a protective basis or otherwise. In any event, this<br \/>\nis something that the High Court can go into in greater detail when it<br \/>\nhears the reference.\n<\/p>\n<p>The civil appeal is allowed The order under appeal is set aside. The<br \/>\nTribunal shall refer to the High Court (or its consideration the questions<br \/>\nset out above, having framed a statement of Case.\n<\/p>\n<p>No order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Durga Engineering And Foundry &#8230; on 3 August, 2000 Bench: Sp Bharucha, U.C. Banerjee, N. Santosh Hegde CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 4089 of 1998 PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JABALPUR RESPONDENT: DURGA ENGINEERING AND FOUNDRY WORKS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03\/08\/2000 BENCH: SP BHARUCHA &amp; U.C. [&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-98104","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>Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Durga Engineering And Foundry ... on 3 August, 2000 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000\" \/>\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 Durga Engineering And Foundry ... on 3 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000\" \/>\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=\"2000-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-08T13:51:45+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=\"9 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-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Durga Engineering And Foundry &#8230; on 3 August, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-08T13:51:45+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1784,\"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-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Durga Engineering And Foundry ... on 3 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-08-02T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-08T13:51:45+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Durga Engineering And Foundry &#8230; on 3 August, 2000\"}]},{\"@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 Durga Engineering And Foundry ... on 3 August, 2000 - 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\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Durga Engineering And Foundry ... on 3 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-08T13:51:45+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":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Durga Engineering And Foundry &#8230; on 3 August, 2000","datePublished":"2000-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-08T13:51:45+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000"},"wordCount":1784,"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-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000","name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... vs Durga Engineering And Foundry ... on 3 August, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-08-02T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-08T13:51:45+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-income-tax-vs-durga-engineering-and-foundry-on-3-august-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Income Tax, &#8230; vs Durga Engineering And Foundry &#8230; on 3 August, 2000"}]},{"@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\/98104","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=98104"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98104\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98104"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98104"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98104"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}