Ita/215/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kozhikode v. M/S.kalikoth Kunhi Timbers, South Beach
High Court
07 Sep 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/215/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kozhikode v. M/S.kalikoth Kunhi Timbers, South Beach
Date of order
07 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/215/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax,Kozhikode v. M/S.kalikoth Kunhi Timbers, South Beach, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Consequently we dismiss the appeal.
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 V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN
ITA.No. 215 of 2009()
---------------------
ITA.108/COCH/1992 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT
---------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
-------------------------
M/S.KOLIKOTH KUNHI TIMBERS, SOUTH
BEACH ROAD, KOZHIKODE.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 07/09/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ.
....................................................................
I.T. Appeal No.215 of 2009
....................................................................Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
We do not find any substantial question of law arising from theorder of the Tribunal because Tribunal noticed that penalty is levied onaccount of a small difference in stock noticed and based on estimationof sale price after rejecting the sale price declared by the assessee intheir accounts. Consequently we dismiss the appeal.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
pms
V.K.MOHANANJudge
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.
EaseValue