Case LawHigh Court › Ita/1158/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inc...

Ita/1158/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. Shri.k.j.mathew

High Court 13 Aug 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1158/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. Shri.k.j.mathew
Date of order
13 Aug 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/1158/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. Shri.k.j.mathew, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

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. 1158 of 2009() ---------------------- IT(S & S) A.86/COCH/2004 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): --------------- K.J.MATHEW, KALLARAKKAL HOUSE, MUTTAM, THODUPUZHA. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ON 13/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. The questions raised pertain to deletion of various additions bythe Tribunal in the block assessment of the respondent. Additionspertain to even personal expenses. We notice that the Tribunal hasaccepted the explanation based on evidence furnished by the assessee.In our view, the questions raised are pure questions of fact and nosubstantial question of law involved to entertain the appeal underSection 260 of the IT Act. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk
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