Case LawHigh Court › Ita/77/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Ta...

Ita/77/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trivandrum v. Shri.n.muraleedharan,Charumoodu

High Court 19 Mar 2009 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/77/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trivandrum v. Shri.n.muraleedharan,Charumoodu
Date of order
19 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Ita/77/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax,Trivandrum v. Shri.n.muraleedharan,Charumoodu, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

Decision: We, therefore, 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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2009 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1930 ITA.No. 77 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2006 IN (S&S) IN ITA.21/COCH/2002 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES) SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------- SHRI.N.MURALEEDHARAN, MURALEE BHAVAN, KANNANAKUZHI, (VIA) CHARUMOODU. ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR FOR R1 THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. ....................................................................I.T. Appeal No.77 of 2008 .................................................................... Dated this the 19th day of March, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The question raised pertains to deletion of addition of Rs.10 lakhsin the block assessment made on the respondent after search, by theCommissioner (Appeals) which is confirmed by the Tribunal. Ongoing through the order of the Tribunal, we find that the additionpertains to difference in value of a property which was stated to be firstpurchased in the name of another person by the assessee himself aspower of attorney holder and later the property was sold in favour ofthe wife of the assessee. The property is admittedly in the Village andassessee's case is that high valuation is shown for the purpose ofobtaining solvency certificate for Abkari licence. The first appellateauthority accepted the case and the Tribunal confirmed it. We do not find any question of law arising from the order of the Tribunal on thefindings on this issue. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIRJudge pms K.SURENDRA MOHANJudge
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