Ita/80/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Trivandrum v. M/S.english Indian Clays,Veli,Trivandrum
High Court
23 Mar 2009 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ita/80/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Trivandrum v. M/S.english Indian Clays,Veli,Trivandrum
Date of order
23 Mar 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ita/80/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax,Trivandrum v. M/S.english Indian Clays,Veli,Trivandrum, the High Court (2009) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: However, we uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismissthe appeal on this issue also.
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 K.SURENDRA MOHAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2009 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1931
ITA.No. 80 of 2008()
--------------------
ITA.38/COCH/2003 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT
-----------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
M/S.ENGLISH INDIAN CLAYS LTD
VELI, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR FOR R1
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 23/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.
....................................................................
I.T. Appeal No.80 of 2008
....................................................................
Dated this the 23rd day of March, 2009.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The three questions raised in the appeal filed by the Revenuerelate to assessee's claim for higher depreciation. After hearing counseland on going through the orders of the lower authorities including theTribunal, we find that the matter only stands remanded to the AssessingOfficer based on the certificate produced by the assessee before thefirst appellate authority. We do not find any substantial question oflaw arising from the order of the Tribunal in respect of a remand orderfor considering higher rate of depreciation. Appeal on this issue isdismissed.
2. Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that
I.A. 2840/2008 is filed to bring an additional issue pertaining tobusiness loss allowed by the Tribunal in trading of shares. We noticethat the first appellate authority as well as the Tribunal allowed theclaim for the reason that income pertaining to sale of shares of the very
same company, though a related income, was assessed as businessincome for the year 1997-98. We do not think the department cantake a different stand when loss is claimed by the assessee pertaining tosale of shares of the very same company. In the circumstances, theabove I.A. is allowed permitting the appellant to raise the questionbefore us. However, we uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismissthe appeal on this issue also.
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.