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
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.