Vinod Chandran, J v. K. Vinod Chandran, Judge

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON FRIDAY ,THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 3RD PHALGUNA, 1940ITA.No. 186 of 2014 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 619/2013 ofI.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/S: POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD.MAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682025 BY ADVS.SRI.P.GOPINATH (SR.)SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIARSMT.PREETHA S. NAIRSRI.JOSON MANAVALANSRI.K.JOHN MATHAISRI.KURYAN THOMASSRI.P.BENNY THOMAS RESPONDENT/S: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCR BUILDINGS, I S PRESS ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682018 BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SENIOR COUNSEL, GOI(TAXES)SRI.JOSE JOSEPH SC FOR INCOME TAX OTHER PRESENT: SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22.02.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ::2:: J U D G M E N T Vinod Chandran, J The only issue arising in the appeal is as tothe application of Section 14A. Section 14A was heldto be applicable only from the year 2008-09 when themachinery provision were brought into force, as held bythe Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2018)401 ITR 445 (SC)[CIT Vs. Essar Teleholdings]. In such circumstances,we find the directions issued by the Tribunal to be notin consonance with the decision of the Hon'ble SupremeCourt. We hence set aside the order of the Tribunal andalso of the Assessing Officer insofar as implementationof Section 14A in the year 2006-07. The question oflaw is answered against the revenue and in favour ofthe assessee. The appeal is allowed. There is no orderas to costs. Sd/- K. Vinod Chandran, Judge Sd/- Ashok Menon, Judge APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED29/12/2008 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), ERNAKULAM. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 30/7/2013. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE TRIBUNAL'S ORDER DATED31/3/2014.