Case LawHigh Court › Wa/1842/2001 Of M/S.vanaja Textiles Ltd,...

Wa/1842/2001 Of M/S.vanaja Textiles Ltd, Trichur v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin

High Court 07 Aug 2012 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wa/1842/2001 Of M/S.vanaja Textiles Ltd, Trichur v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin
Date of order
07 Aug 2012
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In Wa/1842/2001 Of M/S.vanaja Textiles Ltd, Trichur v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cochin, the High Court (2012) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.

Decision: However company has notbothered to engage counsel or appear by themselves.Consequently we dismiss the writ appeal for non prosecution.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/16TH SRAVANA 1934 WA.No. 1842 of 2001 (E) ---------------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OP.NO.2589/1994 DATED 14/12/2000 ----------------------------- APPELLANT(S):------------------------- M/S.VANAJA TEXTILES LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR.N.MARUTHACHALAM, KURICHIKARA,TRICHUR. BY SRI.P.BALACHANDRAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(ASSESSMENT), SPECIAL RANGE,TRICHUR. BY SRI.P.K.R.MENON,SR.COUNSEL FOR IT BY ADV. SRI.N.R.K.NAIR SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM,JJ. -------------------------------WA.NO. 1842 of 2001 ---------------------------------Dated this the 7th day of August, 2012JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ appeal filed in the year 2001 is still pending. Counselwho filed appeal died a few years back and therefore we orderedcommunication to be sent to the appellant about the death of thecounsel requesting them to make alternate arrangement.Registry complied with the order issued by this court bycommunicating to the appellant that counsel is no more and theyshould make alternate arrangement. However company has notbothered to engage counsel or appear by themselves.Consequently we dismiss the writ appeal for non prosecution. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE pmn/ C.K.ABDUL REHIM, 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