Case LawHigh Court › Itr/26/2000 Of The Commissioner Of Incom...

Itr/26/2000 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Central Stores

High Court 21 Feb 2008 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Itr/26/2000 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Central Stores
Date of order
21 Feb 2008
Assessment year(s)
1985-86
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Itr/26/2000 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax v. M/S Central Stores, the High Court (2008) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.

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 T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 21ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 2ND PHALGUNA 1929 ITR.No. 26 of 2000() -------------------- (RA 232/COCH/98 IN ITA NO. 1042/COCHIN/91 OF ITAT,COCHIN BENCH,COCHIN) APPLICANT: ----------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SR.COUNSEL FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: ------------- M/S. CENTRAL STORES, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN RAMESH K.I.JOHN THIS TAX REFERENCE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.R. No. 26 OF 2000 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard standing counsel for the applicant and counsel appearingfor the respondent. The question referred to us pertains to addition onaccount of difference between the cash balance shown in the cash bookand in the Balance Sheet. We find that the Tribunal has given a findingthat there is cash balance available with the assessee on account ofaddition made in the assessment for the year 1982-83. According tocounsel, since accounts were closed for subsequent years, it could beintroduced only for the assessment year 1985-86. Since the tribunal onfacts found that the explanation was acceptable, we do not think anyquestion of law arising from the finding of Tribunal on these facts. Wetherefore answer the question referred against the department and infavour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk
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