Case LawHigh Court › By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera...

By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna

High Court 29 Dec 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna
Date of order
29 Dec 2020
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsmt.k.krishna, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMPRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020 / 8TH POUSHA, 1942 WP(C).No.29147 OF 2020(P) PETITIONER/S: M/S.D.J.AMUSEMENTS,CHATHANKANDATH HOUSE, MANKARA POST, PALAKKAD-678614, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, C.K.DINESHKUMAR. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENONSMT.K.KRISHNA RESPONDENT/S: SC,IT- SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSIONON 29.12.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: WP(C).Nos.29147,29149 and 29150 OF 2020(P) SHAJI P.CHALY, J. =============================== W.P.(C) Nos.29147, 29149 and 29150 of 2020===============================Dated this the 29[th] day of December, 2020 JUDGMENT The captioned writ petitions are filed by one andthe same partner ship firm challenging Ext. P1 orderof the first respondent. Being aggrieved, petitionerhas filed Ext.P2 appeal and P3 stay application inall the writ petitions before the second respondent,which are pending consideration. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat situation would suffice, if a direction isissued to the second respondent to take a decision onExt.P3 stay application submitted by the petitioners.Therefore, after having heard learned counsel for thepetitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for theDepartment this writ petitions are disposed of 3 WP(C).Nos.29147,29149 and 29150 OF 2020(P) directing the second respondent to consider Ext.P3 stay applications submitted by the petitioner inExt.P2 appeals and take a decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till such time coercive action if any shall be keptin abeyance. Sd/- rpk SHAJI P.CHALY JUDGE WP(C).Nos.29147,29149 and 29150 OF 2020(P) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 20.05.2019. EXHIBIT P2COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 27.06.2019. EXHIBIT P3COPY OF STAY PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2015-16 DATED 27.06.2019. EXHIBIT P4COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C)NO.14025/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 13.07.2020.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Defend a reassessment (Sec 148) notice → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan