KIL KOTAGIRI AND THIRUMBADI PLANTATIONS LTD,MUKKOM vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), KOZHIKODE
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed
ITA 333/COCH/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2010-11
Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2010-11 Kil Kotagiri & Thirumbadi Plantations Ltd. .......... Appellant Thirumbadi Estate, Mukkom, Kozhikode 673602 [Pan: Aabct0021G] Vs. Acit, Circle - 2(1), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Viswanathan R.V., Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12.032.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Rubber Plantation. The Return Of Income For Ay 2010-11 Was Filed On 21.09.2010 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 50,17,678/-. The Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Acit, Circle-2(1), Kozhikode
For Appellant: Shri Viswanathan R.V., CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)
…bber trees grown by him. The judicial principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the earlier decisions continue to hold good even after introduction of Rule 7A. In tune with the Supreme Court decisions in the case of Kalpetta Estates Ltd Vs. CIT reported in 221 ITR 601 and in the case of Kailas Rubber & Co. Ltd reported in 60 ITR 435, I hold that no income chargeable to tax accrued on sale of old and unyielding rubber trees.” 15. We notice that the Ld CIT(A) has taken the view with regard to the application of Rule 7A, which is identical with the view expressed by us in the earlier paragraph, i.e., it applies o…
