THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. M/S.COCONUT PALM BEACH GARDEN

PDF · subscribers
ITA/95/2015HC KeralaKLHC01025496201508 June 2016Bench: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The provided text is an excerpt from the cause list and does not contain the operative part of the judgment or the Tribunal's findings. Therefore, it is not possible to determine what the Tribunal decided, the reasoning behind its decision, or the ratio decidendi. The text does not mention any specific issues being decided, any operative directions such as remand or deletion, or any issue left undecided. Consequently, the findings on the issues, the reasoning, and the ratio cannot be extracted from this excerpt.

What were the facts?

This case involves an appeal by the Revenue against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench, dated December 5, 2014. The assessee is M/s Coconut Palm Beach Garden, represented by N.C. John & Sons Pvt. Ltd. The specific assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The appeal challenges the ITAT's decision in MP No. 101/2014. The procedural history indicates that the Income Tax Appeal (ITA) No. 95 of 2015 was heard by the High Court of Kerala on June 8, 2016, along with other related appeals (ITA Nos. 518 & 1499/15). The core dispute revolves around the ITAT's order which is being contested by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam.

What were the issues?

The primary question before the High Court is whether the Tribunal erred in its order dated December 5, 2014, in MP No. 101/2014. The specific grounds of appeal by the Revenue are not detailed in the provided text. However, the Revenue, represented by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, is challenging the ITAT's decision. The assessee, M/s Coconut Palm Beach Garden, is represented by its counsel. The judgment does not explicitly state the arguments made by each side or the specific provisions of the Income Tax Act that are under contention. Therefore, a detailed breakdown of arguments and reliance on authorities cannot be provided based solely on the given excerpt.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU WEDNESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/18TH JYAISHTA, 1938 ITA.No. 95 of 2015 AGAINST THE ORDER IN MP 101/2014 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, DATED 5.12.2014 APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOTTAYAM

BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX RESPONDENT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE: M/S COCONUT PALM BEACH GARDEN C/O N.C.JOHN & SONS PVT. LTD., NEROTH HOUSE, VAZHICHERRY, ALAPPUZHA.

R1 BY ADV. SRI.ANIL D. NAIR R1 BY ADV. SRI.R.SREEJITH R1 BY ADV. SMT.ROSIE ATHULYA JOSEPH R1 BY ADV. SMT.O.A.NURIYA R1 BY ADV. KUM.SOUMYA PRAKASH R1 BY ADV. KUM.MEKHALA M.BENNY THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-06-2016 ITA NOS.518 & 1499/15, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

I.T.A.No.95 of 2015 (C) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A: ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) RWS 147 DT.26.12.2006. ANNEXURE B: CIT (A)'S ORDER NO.ITA-124/ALPY/CIT-IV 2006-2007 DATED 31.3.2008. ANNEXURE C: ITAT'S ORDER IN ITA NO.636/COCH/2008 DATED, 26.8.2009. ANNEXURE D: HIGH COURT'S ORDER IN ITA NO.56/2010 DATED 18.12.2013. ANNEXURE E: ITAT'S ORDER IN ITA NO.636/COCH/2008 DATED 7.3.2014. ANNEXURE F: MISCELLANEOUS PETITION BEFORE THE ITAT FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 17.7.2014. ANNEXURE G: ITAT'S ORDER IN M.P.NO.101/COCH/2014 DATED 5.12.2014. // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T.A.Nos.518/09, 1499/09 & 95/15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 8th day of June, 2016 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. Counsel for the Revenue submits that they are not pursuing these appeals in view of Circular No.21/2015 issued by the CBDT. In view of the submission so made, these appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

JUDGE jes

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →