Case LawHigh Court › Op/9058/1996 Of Commr. Of Incometax v. F...

Op/9058/1996 Of Commr. Of Incometax v. Fact

High Court 04 Jun 2007 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Op/9058/1996 Of Commr. Of Incometax v. Fact
Date of order
04 Jun 2007
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Allowed

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Op/9058/1996 Of Commr. Of Incometax v. Fact, the High Court (2007) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: Accordingly, the following: Order This original petition is allowed.

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 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2007 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1929 OP.No. 9058 of 1996(S) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.NRK.NAIR RESPONDENT: ------------- F.A.C.T. LTD., UDYOGAMANDAL BY ADV. SRI.C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 4[th] day of June, 2007 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. The assessee being aggrieved by the orders passed by theCommissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had filed the second appeal before theIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, Cochin, for the assessmentyear 1978-79. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal. 2. The Revenue had filed an application under section 256(1) of theIncome Tax Act inter alia requesting the Tribunal to state the case and referthe question of law for consideration and decision of this court. The Tribunalby order dated 11[th] of August, 1995 had rejected the application so filed by theRevenue. That is how the Revenue is before us in this petition filed undersec.256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Having gone through the question of law framed by the Revenue,we are of the opinion that the said question would arise for consideration anddecision of this court. Therefore, an appropriate direction requires to beissued to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the following: Order This original petition is allowed. The Tribunal is directed to state thecase and refer the question of law sought for by the Revenue in their O.P.9058/1996 -2- application filed under sec.256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961for consideration and decision of this court. Orderedaccordingly. H.L. DATTU CHIEF JUSTICE K.T. SANKARAN JUDGE mt/DK O.P.9058/1996 -3- H.L. DATTU, C.J. &K.T.SANKARAN, J. O.P.9058 OF 1996 JUDGMENT 4.6.2007
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