Case LawHigh Court › Ita/179/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/179/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Incometax, Trichur v. M/S.rajagopal Textiles Mills Ltd

High Court 08 Feb 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/179/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Incometax, Trichur v. M/S.rajagopal Textiles Mills Ltd
Date of order
08 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ita/179/2001 Of The Commissioner Of Incometax, Trichur v. M/S.rajagopal Textiles Mills Ltd, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 ITA.No. 179 of 2001() --------------------- ITA.496/COCH/1993 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT: -------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI. JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): --------------- M/S. RAJAGOPAL TEXTILE MILLS LTD., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard standing counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri. P.Balakrishnan, counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee. Thequestion raised is only on assessee's entitlement of claim for gratuityliability computed on acturial valuation. The assessment pertains to theyear 1990-91. Since the claim was allowed during this year by theTribunal, the assessee was barred from claiming on actual paymentbasis for liability relating to back years. Consequently we do not thinkthere is any justification to interfere with the Tribunal's order now. Wetherefore dismiss the appeal. However, we make it clear that assesseeis entitled only to deduction of incremental liability for the subsequentyears. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (P.S. GOPINATHAN) Judge.
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