Case LawHigh Court › Ita/80/2008 Of Commissioner Of Income-Ta...

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
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