Ita/410/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Dharmaposhana Company
High Court
09 Jul 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/410/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Dharmaposhana Company
Date of order
09 Jul 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Ita/410/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. M/S. Dharmaposhana Company, the High Court (2009) decided the matter.
Decision: We are, therefore, of theview that the Tribunal rightly rejected the department's appeal.Consequently we dismiss the appeal.
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 C.K.ABDUL REHIM
THURSDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2009 / 18TH ASHADHA 1931
ITA.No. 410 of 2009()
---------------------
ITA.26/COCH//2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT
-----------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
TRICHUR
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT:
--------------------------
M/S.DHARMAPOSHANA COMPANY,
IRINJALAKUDA, TRICHUR DISTRICT.
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ.
....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.410 of 2009
....................................................................Dated this the 9th day of July, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
Questions raised pertain to department's claim for assessment ofinterest earned on Indira Vikas Pathra. The Interest Tax Act provides forlevy of interest tax on loans and advances. The investments made in thePost Office under the above schemes cannot be treated as loan or advancegiven by the assessee to the Government authority. We are, therefore, of theview that the Tribunal rightly rejected the department's appeal.Consequently we dismiss the appeal.
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge
C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge
pms
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.