Case LawHigh Court › Ita/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. South India Corporation Ltd

High Court 25 Jan 2019 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. South India Corporation Ltd
Date of order
25 Jan 2019
Assessment year(s)
2005-06, 2003-04
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ita/386/2010 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I v. South India Corporation Ltd, the High Court (2019) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: The appeal would stand rejected.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 5TH MAGHA, 1940 ITA.No. 386 of 2010 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 127/2009 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 18-06-2010 APPELLANT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I,COCHIN. BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/S: SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.RANI MEYYAMMAI BUILDINGS,WILLINGTON ISLAND,KOCHI-3. BY ADVS.SRI.K.ANAND (SR.)SMT.LATHA ANANDS.SRIDHAR THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T Vinod Chandran, J This appeal is with respect to theassessee's eligibility to claim investment underSection 80IA with respect to the wind millsestablished by the assessee. The issue has alreadybeen considered by us and answered in favour of theassessee and against the revenue in ITA Nos.74 and75/2008 by judgment dated 07.01.2019. Here theassessee's contentions were upheld by the Tribunaland the appeal is filed by the Revenue. Havingalready found the question raised in favour of theassessee and against the revenue, we reject theappeal answering the question in favour of theassessee upholding the order of the Tribunal.There is also another question as to whetherSection 263 would lie as against the claim allowedunder Section 80IA. We need not answer that question since the issue on which the Commissionerinvoked Section 263 has already been answered in favour of the assessee. The appeal would stand rejected. Sd/-K. Vinod Chandran, Judge Sd/- Ashok Menon, Judge jma ITA No.386/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER 143(3) DATED 28/12/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ANNEXURE-B COPY OF THE ORDER U/S.263 DATED 2/2/2009 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ANNEXURE-C COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/6/2010 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH ITA NO. 127/COCH/2009. ANNEXURE-D COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 OF THE SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD.
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