Case LawHigh Court › Ramachandran Nair, J v. C.n.ramachandran...

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.
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