Case LawHigh Court › Ita/1153/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Ita/1153/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S. Kallarackal Maharani Jewellers

High Court 13 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1153/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S. Kallarackal Maharani Jewellers
Date of order
13 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/1153/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S. Kallarackal Maharani Jewellers, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Appeal is dismissed as nosubstantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal.

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. 1153 of 2009() ---------------------- ITA.280/COCH/2005 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 ------------------------- M/S.KALLARACKAL MAHARANI JEWELLERS, GANDHI SQUARE, PERUMBAVOOR. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised pertains to addition on account of un-explained source for purchasing stock. However, on going through theorders of the lower authorities we find that the two partners whobrought in cash in their capital account were carrying on individualbusiness in gold and therefore withdrawal was from their personalaccount from those busisness concerns. Since assessee's explanation isaccepted by the two appellate authorities, we do not want to interferewith the finding of fact entered by them. Appeal is dismissed as nosubstantial question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan