{"id":98439,"date":"2011-08-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011"},"modified":"2017-04-27T08:22:11","modified_gmt":"2017-04-27T02:52:11","slug":"commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nTAXAP\/403\/2010\t 3\/ 3\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nTAX\nAPPEAL No. 403 of 2010\n \n\n \n=================================================\n \n\nCOMMISSIONER\nOF INCOME TAX-V - Appellant(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nCHITRA\nPUBLICITY CO - Opponent(s)\n \n\n================================================= \nAppearance\n: \nMRS\nMAUNA M BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, \nMR SN SOPARKAR, SR. ADV. with\nMRS SWATI SOPARKAR  with Ms. BHOOMI  M THAKORE with MR MONAAL\nDAVAWALA for Opponent(s) :\n1, \n=================================================\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nand\n\t\t\n\t\n\t \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\n \n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 30\/08\/2011 \n\n \n\nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
(Per
\n: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)<\/p>\n
1.\tRevenue
\nhas preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the Tribunal
\ndated 17.7.2009 raising following questions for our consideration:-\n<\/p>\n
“[A]\tWhether the
\nAppellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the
\norder passed by CIT(A) in directing to delete the addition of
\nRs.15,33,088\/- made on account of bogus purchase from M\/s. D.R. Steel
\nCorporation ?\n<\/p>\n
[B]\tWhether the Appellate
\nTribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed
\nby CIT(A) in directing to delete the addition of Rs.26,28,720\/- and
\nRs.41,16,318\/- made on account of bogus purchases from M\/s. Amit
\nEnterprises and M\/s. Om Steel Traders?”\n<\/p>\n
2.\tThe
\nissue pertains to block assessment. The Revenue had carried out
\nsearch and seizure operations in the business and residential
\npremises of the respondent assessee on 13.12.2000. Subsequently, in
\nresponse to the notice under Section 158 BC of the Act, the assessee
\nhad filed the return for the block period under consideration on
\n26.5.2003. The Assessing Officer finalized return on 31.12.2003
\ndetermining the total undisclosed income of Rs.1,45,00,000\/-. The
\nthree amounts of Rs15,33,000\/-,26,28,000\/- and 41,61,000\/- referred
\nto in the questions framed by the Revenue were part of such
\nadditions.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIt
\nis the case of the assessee that such additions are not based on
\nmaterial found during the search operations and, that, therefore, any
\nsubsequent inquiry carried out by the Assessing Officer would not
\npermit him to bring such additions within the fold of the block
\nassessment proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThis
\nis the central issue which is presented for our consideration.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe
\nTribunal, in the impugned judgment, while upholding the view of
\nCIT(Appeals), took into account the documents on record, the
\nstatutory provisions as also decisions of various Courts and
\nTribunals. The Tribunal’s conclusions on the issue may be noted:-\n<\/p>\n
“13.\tWhen
\nwe apply above principles on the facts of the present case we notice
\nthat the impugned purchases are recorded in the regular books and are
\ntaken into account for the purposes of working out the taxable income
\nand no material is found in the search regarding bogus nature of
\nthese purchases. Post search investigation carried out by the A.O.
\nindicated that these purchases might be bogus. Therefore addition
\nrelating to these purchases would fall for consideration in regular
\nassessment and not in block assessment.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tBefore
\nconcluding this issue we may mention that Id.D.R. argued against the
\nassessee making a new case by arguing that impugned purchases would
\nnot fall for consideration in block assessment because no
\nincriminating I relating to these purchases was found in the search.
\nThis argument is tainable because parties are at liberty to raise
\naddition ground if no ts are required to be investigated and the
\nissue can be adjudicated on s of material available on record as held
\nby Hon’ble Supreme Court in case 229 ITR 383 (S.C.). If additional
\nground can be permitted  to be raised then there is no reason why a
\nnew argument based on available material on record cannot be allowed
\nto be raised by the parties. Accordingly, the learned CIT(A) is right
\nin deleting the addition, which we confirm, though on different
\nreasons. Accordingly, Ground Nos.I and 2 of the revenue are
\ndismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
6.\tHaving
\nperused the orders on record, we were of the opinion that the
\nfindings of the Tribunal, prima facie, do not call for any
\ninterference unless of course, observations of the Tribunal are not
\nborne out from the material on record. In that view of the matter, we
\nhad permitted counsel for the Revenue to place for our consideration
\nthe documents which were part of the record to examine whether there
\nwas any material seized during the search operations which would be
\nrelatable to the additions made by the Assessing Officer which are
\ndisputed before us.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tCounsel
\nfor the Revenue had accordingly produced copies  of such documents.
\nWe had perused such documents with the assistance of the counsel.  We
\nfind that there was nothing unearthed during the search operations
\nnor any documents were collected during such search operations which
\nhad any link with the additions made by the Assessing Officer during
\nfinalizing block assessment proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tThis
\nbeing the position, the view of the Tribunal that such additions
\ncould not have formed part of the block assessment, calls for no
\ninterference. We reiterate and clarify that since decision of the
\nTribunal is perfectly in order, no question of law arises. Tax Appeal
\nis, therefore, dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(Akil Kureshi,
\nJ. )<\/p>\n
(Ms. Sonia
\nGokani, J. )<\/p>\n
sudhir<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011 Author: Akil Kureshi, Gokani, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print TAXAP\/403\/2010 3\/ 3 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD TAX APPEAL No. 403 of 2010 ================================================= COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-V – Appellant(s) Versus CHITRA PUBLICITY CO – Opponent(s) ================================================= Appearance : […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-98439","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011 - 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-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-04-27T02:52:11+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=\"4 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-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-27T02:52:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011\"},\"wordCount\":773,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011\",\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-04-27T02:52:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011\"}]},{\"@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 vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011 - 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-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-04-27T02:52:11+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":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011","datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-27T02:52:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011"},"wordCount":773,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011","name":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-08-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-04-27T02:52:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-vs-revenue-on-30-august-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner vs Revenue on 30 August, 2011"}]},{"@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\/98439","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=98439"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/98439\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=98439"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=98439"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=98439"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}