Ita/1786/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kozhikoe v. Mohammed Ashraf, Kondotty
High Court
26 Nov 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/1786/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kozhikoe v. Mohammed Ashraf, Kondotty
Date of order
26 Nov 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/1786/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kozhikoe v. Mohammed Ashraf, Kondotty, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: We are of the view that the lower authorities rightly foundthat there is conflicting stand taken by the department in the assessment of business income and along with it estimating commission received.We therefore dismiss the appeals.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
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
THURSDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1931
ITA.No. 1786 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.277/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT
-----------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CALICUT.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
SRI.K.MOHAMMED ASHRAF, ILLAMKANDY HOUSE
KURUPPATH, KONDOTTY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26/11/2009, ALONG WITH ITA 1787 & 1788 OF 2009
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-----------------------------------------------------
I. T. A. Nos. 1786, 1787 & 1788 OF 2009
------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 26th day of November, 2009
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant-department.After hearing standing counsel and after going through Tribunal's orderwe do not find that the questions raised are substantial questions of lawbecause cash transactions in the bank were found to be representingbusiness transactions of the assessee and therefore addition was madeunder Section 68 of the I.T. Act which is a peak-credit in the bankaccount for each year. The disputed issue was against the assessmentof commission simultaneously on the ground that business was done bythe assessee on behalf of others. The two lower authorities found thatafter finding that business was done by the assessee, and after makingaddition of peak-credit representing undisclosed income, there is noscope for estimating any amount towards commission received by theassessee. We are of the view that the lower authorities rightly foundthat there is conflicting stand taken by the department in the assessment
of business income and along with it estimating commission received.We therefore dismiss the appeals.
(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.