Case Law › High Court › Ita/60/2002 Of Dr.v.i. Nalini v. The Ass...

Ita/60/2002 Of Dr.v.i. Nalini v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Incometax

High Court 06 Sep 2012 In favour of: Revenue

Forum / Bench

High Court · highcourtofkerala

Parties

Date of order

06 Sep 2012

Assessment year(s)

—

Outcome

Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/60/2002 Of Dr.v.i. Nalini v. The Asst. Commissioner Of Incometax, the High Court (2012) 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.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL THURSDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2012/15TH BHADRA 1934 ITA.No. 60 of 2002 (I) ---------------------- ITA.19/1997 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH PETITIONER/APPELLANT ----------------------------------- DR. V.I. NALINI, "RAJNI", KUMARAPURAM, MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADVS.SRI.O.RAMACHANDRAN NAMBIAR SMT.K.P.SANTHI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, DIVISION-I, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06-09-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & K. HARILAL, JJ -----------------------------------------I.T.A. No. 60 OF 2002------------------------------------------Dated this the 6[th] day of September, 2012 J U D G M E N T K.M. Joseph, J No representation for appellant. This petition is dismissedfor default. Sou. Sd/- K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/- K. HARILAL, JUDGE.// True copy //P.A. To Judge.

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.