Ita/1103/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvpm v. P.m.sainudeen, Sain Auto Ways, Sain Plaz
High Court
29 Sep 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1103/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvpm v. P.m.sainudeen, Sain Auto Ways, Sain Plaz
Date of order
29 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/1103/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvpm v. P.m.sainudeen, Sain Auto Ways, Sain Plaz, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently appeal is dismissed.
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 TUESDAY, THE 29TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 7TH ASWINA 1931
ITA.No. 1103 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.475/COCH/2006 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT
---------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
-------------------------
SHRI. P.M.SAINUDEEN,
SAIN AUTOWAYS, SAIN PLAZA, NEAR SANKER'S HOSPITAL,
KOLLAM.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
....................................................................
I.T. Appeal No.1103 of 2009
....................................................................Dated this the 29th day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The questions raised pertain to additions deleted by the Tribunalin appeal. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for theappellant. On going through the Tribunal's order, we find the Tribunalaccepted the trade credit in the name of the wife because assesseeproved before the Tribunal sales tax registration, assessment, etc. heldby the assessee's wife towards proof of business carried on by her.Other questions raised also pertain to various additions deleted by theTribunal by accepting evidence produced by the assessee. We do notfind any substantial question of law arising from the order of theTribunal. Consequently appeal is dismissed.
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.