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

By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsri.krishna K

High Court 28 Sep 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsri.krishna K
Date of order
28 Sep 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In By Advs.sri.harisankar v. Menonsmt.meera V.menonsri.krishna K, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.

Decision: This writ petition is disposed of as above.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 6TH ASWINA, 1940 WP(C).No.31691 of 2018 PETITIONER: T.R.VIJAYAPRASAD,THAYYIL SREEVILAS, NANGIARKULANGARA P.O, ALAPPUZHA - 690 513. BY ADVS.SRI.HARISANKAR V. MENONSMT.MEERA V.MENONSRI.KRISHNA K. RESPONDENT/S: 1THE DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX,INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE, AYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003. 2THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)PANAMPILLY NAGAR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 036 OTHER PRESENT: SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T The petitioner, challenging an order granting stay of demand by theCommissioner of Income Tax Appeal, has approached this Court. Thepetitioner's case is that the assessment was ex parte and one moreopportunity should be given. 2. Anyhow, the petitioner invoked the appellate remedy. The petitionerwas only directed to pay 20% of the demand as a condition for stay. Therewas a request on the side of the petitioner to grant instalment facility to pay20%. Therefore, the petitioner shall be permitted to pay 20% of the demand insix equal monthly instalments starting from 10.10.2018 followed by everymonth. This writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE YEAR 2010-11. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER FOR THE YEAR 2010-2011 DATED 19.03.2018. True Copy P.S to Juge.
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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