Ita/1135/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.the Travancore Rayons Ltd
High Court
13 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1135/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.the Travancore Rayons Ltd
Date of order
13 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/1135/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.the Travancore Rayons Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Since the Tribunal did not consider the case on merit as appealwas not maintainable for the reason that the tax involved is less thanthe limit prescribed for filing appeal, and since the respondent-company is closed for the last 15 years, and since there is no sign ofrevival, we dismiss the appeal.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
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
THURSDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2009 / 22ND SRAVANA 1931
ITA.No. 1135 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.988/COCH/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT
-----------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX COCHIN.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
M/S. THE TRAVANCORE REYONS LTD.
PERUMBAVOOR.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
--------------------------------------------
I.T.A. No. 1135 OF 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair,J.
Since the Tribunal did not consider the case on merit as appealwas not maintainable for the reason that the tax involved is less thanthe limit prescribed for filing appeal, and since the respondent-company is closed for the last 15 years, and since there is no sign ofrevival, we dismiss the appeal.
(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.
EaseValue