Kerala High Court Judgments — 2021

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam considered the memo dated 14.01.2021 filed by the Revenue seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered that the memo be taken on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted in a similar prior case (ITA No.74 of 2016) and directed the Registry to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by Sri. Christopher Abraham, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, ordered the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also noted that a judgment in ITA No. 74 of 2016 dated November 11, 2019, had addressed the refund of proportionate court fee in similar circumstances, and ordered the refund of proportionate court fee in this case as admissible in law.

The High Court allowed the memo to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. The court ordered the appeal to be dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ordered the withdrawal of the appeal. The court acknowledged the memo filed by the Revenue's counsel, Sri. Christopher Abraham, seeking to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also directed the refund of proportionate court fee, referencing a prior judgment in ITA No. 74 of 2016, and instructed the Registry to process the refund to the extent admissible in law. No specific issues related to the merits of the original ITAT order were decided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the Revenue seeking to withdraw the appeal, ordered the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted the submission by the Revenue's counsel regarding a previous judgment where proportionate court fee was refunded. Accordingly, the Court directed the Registry to make a refund of the court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, comprising Justices S.V. Bhatti and Bechu Kurian Thomas, ordered the withdrawal of the appeal based on the memo filed by the appellant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that a refund of proportionate court fee had been granted, taking into consideration the memo filed to withdraw the appeal, referencing a previous judgment in ITA No. 74 of 2016. The Registry was directed to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ordered that the memo dated 14.01.2021, filed by the Revenue's counsel to withdraw the appeal, be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also directed the Registry to refund the proportionate court fee to the extent admissible in law, referencing a similar practice in a prior case (I.T.A. No.74 of 2016). No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute between the Revenue and the assessee.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the Revenue's counsel, ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The court also noted that the Revenue's counsel had drawn attention to a previous judgment concerning the refund of proportionate court fee. Consequently, the Registry was directed to make a refund of the court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision was made on the merits of the case as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court of Kerala considered the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that a refund of proportionate court fee had been granted in a related appeal (ITA No. 74 of 2016) and accordingly ordered the refund of proportionate court fee in this case to the extent admissible in law. No specific issues regarding the merits of the original assessment or the ITAT's order were decided as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, ordered the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted, taking into consideration the memo filed to withdraw the appeal, and directed the Registry to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law.

The High Court accepted the memo dated February 4, 2021, filed by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the memo to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department, ordered the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that a refund of proportionate court fee had been granted, taking into consideration the memo to withdraw the appeal, and directed the Registry to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute between the Revenue and the assessee.

The High Court of Kerala ordered the memo dated 14.01.2021, filed by the appellant's counsel seeking to withdraw the appeal, to be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that the appellant's counsel had drawn attention to a previous judgment of the Court in I.T.A. No.74 of 2016, which had granted a refund of proportionate court fee. Following this, the Court ordered the refund of proportionate court fee to the extent admissible in law. No specific findings were made on the merits of the original appeal, as it was disposed of on the ground of withdrawal.

The High Court allowed the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also ordered the refund of proportionate court fee, referencing a previous judgment in I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016 where similar relief was granted. The Registry was directed to make the refund to the extent admissible in law. No other issues were decided on merits.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, ordered the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted in a related case (ITA No. 74 of 2016) considering such withdrawal memos, and directed the Registry to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the Revenue seeking to withdraw the appeal, ordered the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted, taking into consideration the memo filed to withdraw the appeal, and directed the Registry to make the refund to the extent admissible in law. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ordered that the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that the refund of proportionate court fee, considering the memo filed to withdraw the appeal, had been granted in a previous similar case (I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016). Therefore, the Registry was directed to make a refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision was made on the merits of the original appeal.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, ordered the dismissal of the appeal as withdrawn. The Court also noted that a refund of proportionate court fee had been granted in a similar previous case (I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016), and directed the Registry to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court of Kerala considered the memo filed by the appellant's counsel, Sri. Christopher Abraham, seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered that the memo be taken on record. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also directed the Registry to refund the proportionate court fee to the extent admissible in law, noting that a similar refund had been granted in another related appeal (ITA No. 74 of 2016) where a withdrawal memo was filed. No decision was made on the merits of the original dispute.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam ordered that the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted, taking into consideration the memo filed to withdraw the appeal, as per a previous judgment in I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016 dated November 11, 2019. The Registry was directed to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law.

The High Court allowed the memo to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. The court ordered the withdrawal of the appeal.

The High Court allowed the memo to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the memo filed by the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the memo filed by the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the memo to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered the withdrawal of the appeal.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. The court ordered the withdrawal of the appeal.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the appellant seeking to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered that the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal is accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted, taking into consideration the memo filed to withdraw the appeal, and directed the Registry to make the refund to the extent admissible in law. No specific issues were decided on merits.

The Tribunal held that the DPC's decision to downgrade the applicant's grading based on insignificant remarks was unreasonable and arbitrary. The High Court agreed, finding no valid justification for the DPC's stand and upholding the Tribunal's verdict.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the appellant's counsel, Sri. Christopher Abraham, seeking to withdraw the appeal, ordered the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that the appellant's counsel drew attention to a previous judgment of the High Court in I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016 dated November 11, 2019, wherein refund of proportionate court fee was granted considering a similar memo to withdraw an appeal. Accordingly, the Court ordered the refund of proportionate court fee in the present case.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, ordered the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that the appellant's counsel drew attention to a previous judgment of the High Court in I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016, dated November 11, 2019, concerning the refund of proportionate court fee in similar circumstances. Accordingly, the Court ordered the refund of proportionate court fee to the extent admissible in law.

The High Court of Kerala ordered that the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, be accepted. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted in a previous related matter (ITA No. 74 of 2016) and ordered the registry to make a refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT were made as the appeal was withdrawn.

The High Court considered the memo dated 14.01.2021 filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered that the memo be taken into consideration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted, taking into consideration the memo filed to withdraw the appeal. The Registry was directed to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No other issues were decided on merits.

The High Court of Kerala ordered the withdrawal of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court considered the memo filed by the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. The court ordered the withdrawal of the appeal.

The High Court allowed the memo filed by the Revenue to withdraw the appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court allowed the memo to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed as withdrawn.

The High Court considered the memo dated 14.1.2021 filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal. The Court ordered that the appeal be dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that proportionate court fee refund had been granted in a related appeal (I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016), taking into consideration the memo filed to withdraw the appeal. Consequently, the Registry was directed to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No specific findings on the merits of the original dispute before the ITAT were made, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of withdrawal.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the memo dated January 14, 2021, filed by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department to withdraw the appeal, ordered the withdrawal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The Court also noted that refund of proportionate court fee had been granted in a similar case (I.T.A. No. 74 of 2016) and directed the Registry to make the refund of court fee to the extent admissible in law. No decision on the merits of the original dispute was made.

The High Court held that the assessee had accepted ownership of the money found in the locker of his brother-in-law, Sri. T.V. Johnson. However, the assessee had not shown any receipt of income from Sri. E.P. Jose in his cash book or day book, which was expected for a builder. The Court noted that keeping such a large amount in cash in a locker, when the assessee had several bank accounts nearby, suggested an intention to keep it as unaccounted income. The Court referred to Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for deeming money not recorded in books of account as income if no satisfactory explanation is offered. The Tribunal had concurred with the Assessing Officer's finding that the assessee's explanation was unsatisfactory. The High Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 260A, found that the issue revolved purely around facts and that the Tribunal, as the final fact-finding authority, had not committed any perversity. The questions of law were answered against the assessee.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in its judgment dated January 25, 2021, noted that the advocate for the appellant, M/s. Santhosh Hospital, stated that the prayer in I.T. Appeal No. 59/2014 was not pressed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal. No specific findings on the merits of the case or the ITAT's order were made, as the appeal was disposed of on the procedural ground of the appellant not pressing the prayer. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal dismissed for not being pressed does not involve a decision on the substantive issues.

The High Court of Kerala, upon considering the petition filed by the counsel for the appellant seeking permission to withdraw the appeal, allowed the petition. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court did not delve into the merits of the original appeal or the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The decision is based solely on the assessee's request to withdraw the appeal. No other issues were decided, and no specific ratio decidendi for future cases on the merits of the appeal was established.

The High Court held that for a revised return to completely efface the original return and provide the assessee with all benefits, it must be filed in accordance with Section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For assessment years prior to April 1, 1988, the revised return must be filed within two years from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of assessment, whichever is earlier. In this case, the revised return for assessment year 1987-88 was filed on January 14, 1991, which was after the two-year period expired on March 31, 1990. Therefore, the revised return could not be treated as having completely effaced the original return. Consequently, the concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars were revealed to the assessing officer in the course of proceedings under the Act. The Court found that the assessing officer was entitled to initiate penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) when satisfied about concealment or inaccurate particulars during any proceedings. The appeal was dismissed.

The High Court of Kerala observed that an out-of-turn hearing cannot be granted solely because a party approaches the court. While the petitioner's main grievance regarding a refund was redressed, their appeals for assessment years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 were still pending before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The court did not grant the request for an out-of-turn hearing. Instead, it closed the writ petition with a request to the 4th respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the pending appeals as per their terms, implying that the appeals should be decided in due course according to the established procedures and timelines.

The High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam allowed the appellant's request to withdraw the appeal. The court held that the appeal could be dismissed as withdrawn. Crucially, the court granted the appellant liberty to file a fresh appeal on the same cause of action. This implies that the withdrawal was not on merits, and the appellant retains the right to pursue the matter further if the settlement process does not yield a satisfactory outcome or if the cause of action persists. No specific issue was decided on the merits of the original appeal.