Case LawHigh Court › Ita/242/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/242/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Kerala State Co-Op.rubber Marketing

High Court 02 Jul 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/242/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Kerala State Co-Op.rubber Marketing
Date of order
02 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ita/242/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. The Kerala State Co-Op.rubber Marketing, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: In these circumstances we do not find anysubstantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.Consequently the appeal is dismissed.

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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM THURSDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2009 / 11TH ASHADHA 1931 ITA.No. 242 of 2009() --------------------- ITA.136/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT: ----------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE KERALA STATE CO-OP.RUBBER MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., GANDHI NAGAR, COCHIN-20. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I.T.A. No. 242 of 2009 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 2[nd] day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T---------------------- Ramachandran Nair,J. Respondent assessee is a company in the co-operative sectorunder the control of Government of Kerala. In the connected case wehave already taken the view that the Tribunal rightly alloweddeduction claimed by the assessee towards guarantee commission andinterest paid to the Government for support and finance arranged bythe Government. So far as the question regarding interest due underSection 234A is concerned the Tribunal allowed it only because thereis a calculation error. So far as the challenge in the order of theTribunal on deduction allowed under Section 35D is concerned wenotice the Tribunal has remanded the case to the Assessing Officer forre-examination. Yet another question raised is the provision towardsGovernment shares which again is remanded by the Tribunal to theAssessment Officer. In these circumstances we do not find anysubstantial question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal.Consequently the appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.K.ABDUL REHIM, 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