Itta/494/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. K.v.ram Kumar
High Court
03 Aug 2017 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/494/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. K.v.ram Kumar
Date of order
03 Aug 2017
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/494/2017 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central) v. K.v.ram Kumar, the High Court (2017) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Decision: Therefore, following the same, this appeal is also dismissed.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
The order — as passed by the High Court
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND
HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI
I.T.T.A. No.494 of 2017
Judgment: (per V.Ramasubramanian, J.)
This is an appeal filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, raising the following substantial question of law:
(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
the Tribunal is correct in holding the method of accounting adopted by the assessee is correct?
2. It is seen from an order passed in a batch of cases ITTA
Nos.436, 442, 445, 450 and 452 of 2017 that the same question of law as against the same assessee was answered against the Department by an order dated 18-7-2017 by another Bench of this Court. Therefore, following the same, this appeal is also dismissed. The miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. No costs.
___________________________
V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J.
03[rd] August, 2017. Ak
_____________
T.RAJANI, J.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.RAJANI
I.T.T.A. No.494 of 2017(per VRS, J.)
03[rd] August, 2017. (Ak)
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.