IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 5TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 16TH MAGHA 1929 ITA.No. 199 of 2001() --------------------- ITA.1025/1991 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH .................... APPELLANT : ----------------- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.R.MENON(SR.),SC FOR IT SRI.GEORGE K. GEORGE, SC FOR IT RESPONDENTS: ------------- M/S. RAM BAHADUR THAKKUR PVT. LTD., COCHIN BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH MARKOSE SRI.THOMAS VELLAPPALLY THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JJ. -------------------------------------------- I.T.A. No. 199 OF 2001 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of February, 2008 JUDGMENT C.N. Ramachandran Nair,J. The question raised in the departmental appeal is whether the Tribunal is justified in allowing deduction of 50% of income earned by the assessee in the form of refund of sales tax. While senior counsel for the revenue contended that entire refund is income at the hands of the assessee, senior counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee contended that but for the payment under the agreement the assessee would not have got refund. We find from the order of the Tribunal that payment is made under agreement and obviously without payment and without getting documents such as export orders, shipping documents, bills of lading and producing the same the assessee would not have got refund. Further, since the amount paid is under agreement 50% allowed as deduction at the hands of the assessee is income in the hands of receipient. Since Tribunal has rendered decision based on 2 finding of facts on this issue, we do not find any ground to reverse the Tribunal's order. We accordingly dismiss the appeal. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. kk 3