Ita/216/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.n.c.j.john
High Court
05 Jul 2010 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/216/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.n.c.j.john
Date of order
05 Jul 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Ita/216/2010 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S.n.c.j.john, 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.
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 P.S.GOPINATHAN
MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932
ITA.No. 216 of 2010()
---------------------
ITA.563/COCH/2008 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/APPELLANT
---------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONR OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM
BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT
-------------------------
M/S.N.C.J JOHN & SONS PVT.LTD, ALAPPUZHA
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, A/W. ITA 221/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
C.N.Ramachandran Nair &P.S.Gopinathan, JJ.
-------------------------------------------
I.T.Appeal Nos.216 & 221 of 2010
-------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5[th] day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The tribunal has rejected the appeals for the reason thatthe tax involved is below the threshold limit for maintainability ofappeal. Standing Counsel submitted that Tribunal assumption isincorrect and according to him, tax involved is above the limitfor maintainability of appeal. This is a factual issue which thedepartment can demonstrate before the Tribunal by moving anapplication for restoration of the appeals. These appeals aredismissed with the above observation.
C.N.Ramachandran Nair, Judge
P.S.Gopinathan, Judge
cms
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.