Ita/1085/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mace Alimini
High Court
02 Dec 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1085/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mace Alimini
Date of order
02 Dec 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/1085/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mace Alimini, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
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 V.K.MOHANAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931
ITA.No. 1085 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.137/COCH/2004 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT
---------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,COCHIN.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
-------------------------
MACE ALUMINI WELFARE SOCIETY,
C/O.UNIDEC FOUNDATION (P) LTD.,
FATHIMA CHURCH ROAD,ERNAKULAM.
ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN
SMT.C.K.SHERIN
SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.1085 of 2009
....................................................................Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv.
Sri.T.M.Sreedharan appearing for the respondent. After hearing bothsides and after going through Tribunal's order, we do not find any meritin the department's case because the land involved is purchased by theWelfare Society of a college for allotment among the members forsetting up houses. The assessment is basically on account of increasein value of the land in the course of time which at the maximumconstitute notional income. We do not find any substantial question oflaw arising from the order of the Tribunal. Consequently we dismissthe appeal.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
V.K.MOHANANJudge
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.