Ita/1621/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt.gracy Abraham
High Court
22 Sep 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1621/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt.gracy Abraham
Date of order
22 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/1621/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Smt.gracy Abraham, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Since no substantial question of law arises fromthe order of the Tribunal, we dismiss this 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 V.K.MOHANAN
TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931
ITA.No. 1621 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.521/COCH/2007 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):
---------------
SMT.GRACY ABRAHAM, C/O.SHRI M.P.ITTYARH,
CA & AR., MANCHU COMPLEX,
P T USHA ROAD, KOCHI.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
....................................................................
I.T. Appeal No.1621 of 2009
....................................................................
Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The questions raised pertain to market value adopted for the landas on 1.4.1981 for the purpose of fixation of long terms capital gains.We are of the view that the questions raised regarding valuation areonly questions of fact. Since no substantial question of law arises fromthe order of the Tribunal, we dismiss this appeal.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
pms
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.
EaseValue