Ita/1490/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.n.b.jayakrishnan
High Court
04 Oct 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1490/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.n.b.jayakrishnan
Date of order
04 Oct 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/1490/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.n.b.jayakrishnan, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently appeals are 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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932
ITA.No. 1490 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.152/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
--------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT/APPELLANT:
---------------
M/S.N.B.JAYAKRISHNAN,1/313, SHEETAL, BEYPORE.P.O.KOZHIKODE-673 015.
1/313, SHEETAL, BEYPORE.P.O.
ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM GEORGE JACOB
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 04/10/2010, ALONG WITH ITA NO.1496 OF 2009, THE COURT
ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
....................................................................
I.T. Appeal Nos.1490 & 1496 of 2009
....................................................................
Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
These are departmental appeals filed challenging the orders of the
Tribunal cancelling penalty levied under Section 271D of the IncomeTax Act. We have heard Standing Counsel appearing for the appellantand counsel appearing for the assessee.
2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders ofthe Tribunal, we find that the Tribunal cancelled penalty because loans,though taken in violation of Section 269SS, were accepted as genuineby the department. Further, it is the finding of the Tribunal thatexigencies of business of the respondent-assessee which is a civilconstruction contractor demanded cash borrowals mainly to meetpayment to the labourers. We do not find any substantial question of
law arising from the orders of the Tribunal which is rendered based onthe findings of fact. Consequently appeals are dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
K.SURENDRA MOHANJudge
pms
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.