Ita/199/2011 Of Yenkey Roller Floor Mills v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BABU MATHEW P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2012/11TH PHALGUNA 1933 ITA.No. 199 of 2011 () ----------------------AGAINST ORDER IN ITA NO.24/2010 DATED 29/07/2001 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT(S):/ APPELLANT ------------ YENKEY ROLLER FLOUR MILLS,6/1183, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS.SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR (SR.) SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.P.GOPINATH SMT.PREETHA S.NAIR RESPONDENT(S):/ RESPONDENT -------------- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING,IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI - 682 018. BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-03-2012, ALONG WITH ITA NO.200/2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAYDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A :COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2006-07 ISSUED BYTHE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT TO THE APPELLANT DATED 22/12/2008. ANNEXURE-B :COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APPEALS) TO THE APPELLANT DATED 12/10/2009. ANNEXURE-C :COPY OF TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 29/07/2011 ISSUED TOTHE APPELLANT. ANNEXURE-D :COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 28/12/2005 OF THECFTRI, MYSORE. //TRUE COPY// jg PA TO JUDGE. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, &BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal Nos.199 & 200 of 2011 ....................................................................Dated this the 1[st] day of March, 2012. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Standing Counsel took notice on admission. At the admissionstage we heard both counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel forthe respondent. The question raised is decided for another year in the case ofassessee in I.T.A. No.199/2011, vide judgment in I.T.A. No.1666/2009dated 25.7.2011, wherein this court held that the assessee is entitled todeduction of production loss of 2%. In I.T.A. No.200/2011 also theissue raised is one and the same. We, therefore, allow both the appealsin part by modifying orders of the Tribunal directing deduction of 2%towards production loss. The Assessing Officer is directed to modifyassessments as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPHJudge