Ita/1684/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tvpm v. A.shahul Hameed,P/O M/S Ciry Shoe Mart
High Court
13 Oct 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1684/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tvpm v. A.shahul Hameed,P/O M/S Ciry Shoe Mart
Date of order
13 Oct 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/1684/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Tvpm v. A.shahul Hameed,P/O M/S Ciry Shoe Mart, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Since no substantial question of law arises from the order of theTribunal, 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 V.K.MOHANAN
TUESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2009 / 21ST ASWINA 1931
ITA.No. 1684 of 2009()
----------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31/12/2008 IN COCH IN
ITA.745/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
RESPONDENT:
-------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT:
-------------------------
A.SHAHUL HAMEED, P/O M/S.CITY SHOE MART
CHALAI, TRIVANDRUM.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 13/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K. MOHANAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------
I.T.A. No. 1684 OF 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of October, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
We have by separate judgment dismissed another appeal filed bythe department against the very same assessee. In this appeal also wefind the questions raised are only against pure findings of fact renderedby the Tribunal with regard to explanation accepted in respect of creditin the current account, addition on account of un-explained investment,etc. Since no substantial question of law arises from the order of theTribunal, we dismiss the appeal.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.
(V.K. MOHANAN)
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.