Ita/184/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S.cee Cee Brothers, Cochin
High Court
29 Jun 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/184/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S.cee Cee Brothers, Cochin
Date of order
29 Jun 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/184/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S.cee Cee Brothers, Cochin, the High Court (2009) 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.
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. 184 of 2009()
---------------------
ITA.123/COCH/1999 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT(S):
--------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
COCHIN.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
M/S.CEE CEE BROTHERS,CEE CEE HOUSE,COCHIN-682 002.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 29/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-----------------------------------
I.T.A. No. 184 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated this the 29[th] day of June, 2009
J U D G M E N T----------------------
Ramachandran Nair,J.
Question raised pertains to assessee's entitlement for writeoff of bad debts which is in the form advance paid to retailers ofliquor appointed by them. The assessing officer disallowed theclaim for the reason that the advances were not made fromaccounted income of the assessee. However, assessee producedevidence before the first appellate authority to prove thatintending charges accounted was the source of advances made.The evidence produced by the assessee with the explanation wasaccepted in the first appeal and by the Tribunal. We do not findany question of law arising from the order of Tribunal. Theappeal is consequently dismissed.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.
C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
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.