Disposed

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Poyilakada Fisheries Ltd, Kollam.

Kerala HC20 Dec 2018ITA/106/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court closed an Income Tax Appeal filed by the Commissioner against an ITAT order dismissing an appeal for not meeting litigation monetary limits. The Court noted the assessee declared a loss with no tax effect for the relevant year.

What did the court decide?

Income Tax Appeal would stand closed leaving the question of law open. No order as to costs.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S. Poyilakada Fisheries Ltd… — Income Tax | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/29TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940

¶7

ITA.No. 106 of 2009

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ITA 813/2005 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 21-01-2008

¶9

APPELLANT/S:

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX

¶12

RESPONDENT/S:

¶13

M/S. POYILAKADA FISHERIES LTD, KOLLAM. KOLLAM.

¶14

BY ADVS. SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS SRI.JOSON MANAVALAN SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI SRI.KURYAN THOMAS SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR SRI.P.GOPINATH SRI.SANDEEP GOPALAKRISHNAN

¶15

OTHER PRESENT:

¶16

SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC

¶17

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

ITA 106/2009

JUDGMENT

Vinod Chandran, J

¶22

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the

¶23

ground that the demand raised from the order appealed against is lower than the mandatory limit as prescribed under the Litigation Policy for maintaining an appeal before the Tribunal. The question raised was with respect to the revised return filed declaring loss of Rs.7,60,87,930/- as against the earlier loss declared of Rs.3,50,00,000/-. There was absolutely no tax effect for the subject assessment year. The learned Senior Standing Counsel, Government of India (Taxes) submitted that the mere fact that there was no tax effect for that year would not determine the

¶24

ITA 106/2009

¶25

¶26

monetory limit, especially since the assessee could have earned profits in the subsequent years and if that exceeded the limit, definitely there was a scope for consideration as to whether the revised return was proper or not. Hence we directed the revenue to file a statement as to the details of the returns for the subsequent year. The Department has today filed a statement clearly indicating that in the next eight years the assessee has been declaring a loss. Since loss could be carried over only for eight years, we do not think that the consideration of the appeal is expedient especially since this would not create any tax liability on the assessee for the subsequent years also for reason of the declaration of loss in the subsequent 8 years during which

¶27

ITA 106/2009

¶28

¶29

period alone the loss could be carried over.

¶30

IT Appeal would stand closed leaving the

¶31

question of law open. No order as to costs.

¶32

Sd/K. Vinod Chandran, Judge

¶33

Sd/Ashok Menon, Judge

jma

ITA 106/2009

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶39

ANNEXURE-A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 29/12/1998. ANNEXURE-B TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 17/03/2005. ANNEXURE-C TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DATED 21/01/2008. ANNEXURE-D TRUE COPY OF THE CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.2/2005 DATED 24/10/2005.

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Poyilakada Fisheries Ltd, Kollam.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/S. Poyilakada Fisheries Ltd, Kollam.

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Vs M/S. Malayil Bankers

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S.Malayil Bankers

The Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram Vs M/S.Malayil Bankers, C/O.Shri.George Varghese

Mohammed Sherief Vs the Asst. Commissioner

Cochin Port Trust Vs Indian Maritime University

Anoop Raj Vs the Dy.Tahsildar (Rr)