In Costal Resorts India Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax [(2014) 363 Itr 482

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC &THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/21ST KARTHIKA, 1936 ITA.No. 290 of 2013 () ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 657/COCH/2010 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 25-10-2012 APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ M/S.HOTEL & ALLIED TRADES PVT. LTD C/O.CASINO HOTEL, W/ISLAND, COCHIN-3. BY ADVS.SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE (SR.) SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS SRI.BINU MATHEW SRI.TOM THOMAS (KAKKUZHIYIL) SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS SRI.ABRAHAM VARGHESE THARAKAN RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------------ THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE (II), ERNAKULAM. R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON12-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX IN ITA.290/13 APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE A: A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.11.2009. ANNEXURE B: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN THE APPEAL DATED 15.9.2010OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -11 ANNEXURE C: A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 26.10.2012 PASSED BY THE ITATIN ITA NO.678/COCH/2010/ /TRUE COPY/ PS TO JUDGE ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A.No.290 of 2013 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 12[th] day of November, 2014JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1. In this appeal filed by the assessee, challengingthe order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalin ITA.No.657/Coch/2010, the following two questionsthe order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunalin ITA.No.657/Coch/2010, the following two questions of law are raised for consideration: “(a) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal is justified in reversing thedecision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) allowing the claim of the Appellant fordepreciation on the written down value of buildingin the lease hold premises amounting toRs.73,71,453/- in view of the decision of theHon'ble Madras High Court reported in 293 ITR432.case the Tribunal is justified in reversing thedecision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) allowing the claim of the Appellant fordepreciation on the written down value of buildingin the lease hold premises amounting toRs.73,71,453/- in view of the decision of theHon'ble Madras High Court reported in 293 ITR432. (b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase the Tribunal is justified in reversing thedecision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) deleting the dividend income of theCompany from associated companies invoking Rule8D.”case the Tribunal is justified in reversing thedecision of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) deleting the dividend income of theCompany from associated companies invoking Rule8D.” 2.The first question of law stands already answeredagainst the appellant by the judgment of this Courtagainst the appellant by the judgment of this Court ITA.290/13 in Costal Resorts India Ltd.v. AssistantCommissioner of Income Tax [(2014) 363 ITR 482]. 3.In so far as the second question is concerned,reading of the Tribunal's order shows that the issuestands remitted to the Assessing Officer for freshconsideration and therefore, this question does notarise for consideration of this Court.reading of the Tribunal's order shows that the issuestands remitted to the Assessing Officer for freshconsideration and therefore, this question does notarise for consideration of this Court. Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge. Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, Judge. kkb.