Ita/413/2010 Of Joy Thomas v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
High Court
09 Dec 2010 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/413/2010 Of Joy Thomas v. Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
09 Dec 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/413/2010 Of Joy Thomas v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
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 B.P.RAY
THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932
ITA.No. 413 of 2010()
---------------------
(AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2010 IN ITA.144/COCH/2004 of
I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH)
....................
APPELLANT / RESPONDENT
--------------------
SRI.JOY THOMAS, TRICHUR.
BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E)
SRI.MOHAN PULIKKAL
RESPONDENT(S): / APPELLANT
---------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL,COCHIN.
MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SC
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JJ.----------------------------------
ITA No.413 of 2010
---------------------------------
Dated, this the 9[th] day of December, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Ramachandran Nair, J.
At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant, thisI.T.A. is dismissed as withdrawn leaving freedom to the appellant toclaim eligible refund of court fee.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(BHABANI PRASAD RAY, JUDGE)
jg
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.
EaseValue