Ita/325/2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income -Tax v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd
High Court
05 Aug 2024 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/325/2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income -Tax v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd
Date of order
05 Aug 2024
Assessment year(s)
2010-11
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/325/2019 Of The Principal Commissioner Of Income -Tax v. Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2024) decided the matter.
Issue: In that case, it was also observed that thequestion as to whether the assessee had withdrawn anyamount from the special reserve created and maintainedduring the relevant year, was more a question of fact andnot a substantial question of law for the purposes ofmaintaining an I.T.
Decision: 325 OF 2019 2024:KER:58694 therefore, we dismiss the I.T.Appeal preferred by therevenue by finding that it does not raise any substantialquestion of law to be considered by this Court.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
ITA NO. 325 OF 2019
2024:KER:58694
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.MONDAY, THE 5 DAY OF AUGUST 2024 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1946
ITA NO. 325 OF 2019
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 18.06.2019 IN ITA NO.115 OF2019 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCHAPPELLANT/APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE
THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAXTHIRUVANANTHAPURAM
BY ADV SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE
KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTDKESTON ROAD, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 003 (PAN )
BY ADVS. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN (SR.)SMT.NISHA JOHNSRI.V.P.NARAYANANSMT.DIVYA RAVINDRANSRI.R.BHASKARA KRISHNAN
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON05.08.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T============
Dr. A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
It is agreed by both sides that the issue as towhether in the context of Section 36(1)(viii) and Section41(4A) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act' for short), awithdrawal from a special reserve, in respect of which adeduction had been allowed under Section 36(1)(viii) ofthe Act, would attract the provisions of Section 41(4A) ofthe Act, so as to deem the withdrawn amount as profitsand gains of business or profession, has been decided bythis Court in the judgment dated 05.04.2019 in I.T.AppealNo.69 of 2014 and connected cases, wherein this Courtfound in favour of the assessee in almost similarcircumstances. In that case, it was also observed that thequestion as to whether the assessee had withdrawn anyamount from the special reserve created and maintainedduring the relevant year, was more a question of fact andnot a substantial question of law for the purposes ofmaintaining an I.T. Appeal before this Court.
Following the said judgment of this Court
smm
ITA NO. 325 OF 2019
2024:KER:58694
therefore, we dismiss the I.T.Appeal preferred by therevenue by finding that it does not raise any substantialquestion of law to be considered by this Court.
Sd/-
DR. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF ITA 325/2019
2024:KER:58694
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE A
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE FOR THE AY 2010-11 DATED 11/03/2016.
ANNEXURE BTRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) TRIVANDRUM DATED 30/11/2018.
ANNEXURE C
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN IT NO. 115/COCH/2019 FOR THE AY 2010-11 DATED18/06/2019.
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.