Partly allowed

Sri.a.Janardhanan v. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Kerala HC28 Oct 2010ITA/1569/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

ITAT remanded the case on open grounds. The High Court held the Assessing Officer must consider the significance of the Tribunal’s batch decision regarding other partners of the same firm and affirming them.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Assessing Officer to take into account the significance of the Tribunal’s decision in the case of other partners of the firm. Appeal disposed of as above.

Sri.a.Janardhanan Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932

¶5

ITA.No. 1569 of 2009() -------------------------------IT(SS)A.8/COCH/2002 of INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH ....................

¶6

APPELLANT/APPELLANT

¶7

------------------------------------

¶8

SRI.A. JANARDHANAN, ARACKAL HOUSE, OLLUR P.O., TRISSUR.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:

¶11

--------------------------------------------

¶12

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON, SR.COUNSEL, GOI (TAXES), SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX.

¶14

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

¶16

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶17

K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ.

¶18

I.T.A.NO:1569 OF 2009

¶19

Dated this the 28^th October, 2010.

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶22

Heard counsel for the appellant and standing counsel for the revenue. In the course of search conducted in the premises of Shri. K.V.Ramakrishnan it came to the notice that the assessee while working as a branch manager of a scheduled bank invested money in a bar hotel in the name of another person and he was in receipt of income. The binami was made to retire from the firm leading to receipt of an amount of 6.5 lakhs over the share of Rs.1 lakh towards share maintained by the assessee. The assessee contested the liability for taxes treating the amount received on retirement of his banami under Section 69 of the Act. What we find from the Tribunal's order is that they have made only an open remand without deciding any issue. The counsel for the assessee brought to our notice the batch decision of the Tribunal in the case of other partners of the firm which is today upheld by us (ITA Nos: 474/2009 etc). In the circumstances, we dispose of the appeal directing the Assessing Officer to take into account the significance

¶23

ITA 1569/2009

¶24

¶25

of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of partners of Messrs. Mamatha Motels affirmed by us. Appeal is disposed of as above.

¶26

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge

¶27

K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge

¶28

¶29

ITA 1569/2009 3

Sri.a.Janardhanan v. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.a.Janardhanan v. the Commissioner of Income Tax

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ansari Charitable Trust,Perumpilavu Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax,Trichur

Lekha.S Vs the Director,Model & Super Speciality Ho

State of Kerala Vs M/S. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Kozhikode Vs Shri.M.v.Narayanan,Ponnani,Malappuram Dt

The Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut Vs K.C.Ashraf,Korathvchalil House,Narikuni

Commissioner of Income Tax,Calicut Vs a.P.Abdu Rahiman