Ramachandran Nair, J v. C.n.ramachandran Nair) Judge
High Court
15 Nov 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Ramachandran Nair, J v. C.n.ramachandran Nair) Judge
Date of order
15 Nov 2010
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Ramachandran Nair, J v. C.n.ramachandran Nair) Judge, the High Court (2010) allowed the appeal.
Decision: Following the above judgments, we allow thedepartmental appeal by reversing the order of the Tribunal and byrestoring the order of the Commissioner issued under Section 263 ofthe Act.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.P.RAY
MONDAY, THE 15TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 24TH KARTHIKA 1932
ITA.No. 1097 of 2009()
----------------------
ITA.188/COCH/2007 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
....................
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT
----------------------------------------
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
COCHIN.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)
SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT
------------------------
BHARAT BUILDERS,31/2048,VYTTILA,
KOCHI-19.
ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN (E) FOR R1
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 15/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
--------------------------------------------
I.T.A. No. 1097 of 2009
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
The question raised is with regard to correctness of the order ofthe Tribunal cancelling Section 263 order issued by the Commissionerof Income Tax in respect of respondent-assessee for the assessmentyear 1997-98. The issue raised is squarely covered by a DivisionBench decision of this Court in MUBARAK TRADING COMPANYV. CIT, (2009) 222 C.T.R. (Ker.) 194 and another unreported decisionin RADHA PICTURE PALACE V. DY. CIT, I.T.A.No. 39 of 2003dated 10.12.2009. Following the above judgments, we allow thedepartmental appeal by reversing the order of the Tribunal and byrestoring the order of the Commissioner issued under Section 263 ofthe Act.
(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR)Judge.
(BHABANI PRASAD RAY)
Judge.
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.