Case LawHigh Court › Ita/171/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/171/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm v. M/S.termo Penpal Ltd

High Court 29 Jun 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/171/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm v. M/S.termo Penpal Ltd
Date of order
29 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

Case summary

In Ita/171/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Tvm v. M/S.termo Penpal Ltd, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Issue: Question raised is whether assessee was rightlygranted higher rate of depreciation by CIT (Appeal) which wasconfirmed by Tribunal.

Decision: Consequently the appeal is 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 MONDAY, THE 29TH JUNE 2009 / 8TH ASHADHA 1931 ITA.No. 171 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.760/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: --------------------- M/S.TERUMO PENPAL LTD., SASTHAMANGALAM, TRIVANDRUM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. ----------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 171 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 29[th] day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. Question raised is whether assessee was rightlygranted higher rate of depreciation by CIT (Appeal) which wasconfirmed by Tribunal. We notice that the claim made wasallowed by appellate authorities based on the certificate issuedby the prescribed authority which is a Government of IndiaDepartment in terms of Rule 5(2). The Assessing Officer hasrightly pointed out that though the assessee has a foreigncollaboration agreement nothing is spent for acquisition of know-how. Admittedly know how is developed by an Indian Company.We therefore do not find any substantial question of law arisingfrom the appellate order. Consequently the appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE. okb
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