Court In Cit v. C.n.ramachandran Nair)Judge
High Court
10 Aug 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Court In Cit v. C.n.ramachandran Nair)Judge
Date of order
10 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Court In Cit v. C.n.ramachandran Nair)Judge, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
& THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2009 / 19TH SRAVANA 1931
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
ITA.No. 1036 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.36/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT
---------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
-------------------------
M/S.TRULY KURIES & LOANS (P) LTD.,
KUNNAMKULAM.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ON 10/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
--------------------------------------------
I.T.A. No. 1036 OF 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
Since the issue raised is squarely covered by the decision of this
Court in CIT v. KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISESLTD., 220 CTR 286, we allow the appeal by setting aside the order ofthe Tribunal and that of the first appellate authority and remand thematter to the assessing officer for redoing the assessment based on theprinciples laid down in the above decision after issuing notice to theassessee and after serving a copy of this judgment.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.
(C. K. ABDUL REHIM)
Judge.
kk
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.