Case Law › High Court › Ita/496/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Inco...

Ita/496/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S.lachmandas Trust, Ernakulam

High Court 12 Jul 2016 In favour of: Assessee

Forum / Bench

High Court · highcourtofkerala

Parties

Date of order

12 Jul 2016

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Ita/496/2009 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin v. M/S.lachmandas Trust, Ernakulam, the High Court (2016) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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 ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2016/21ST ASHADHA, 1938 ITA.No. 496 of 2009 ( ) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 317/COCH/2002 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 09-03-2005 APPELLANT: ------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- M/S.LACHMANDAS TRUST, PROP.ASWANI ENTERPRISES, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12-07-2016, ALONG WITH ITA NOS. 115 & 264 OF 2010 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------- I.T.A. Nos. 496 & 846 of 2009 & 115 & 264 of 2010 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 12[th] day of July, 2016. JUDGMENT Antony Dominic,J. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Revenue that the Revenue is not desirous of prosecuting the matter. In view of the submission so made, these appeals aredismissed as withdrawn. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE. DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE. Rv

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.