Wa/237/2014 Of Joshi Manuel v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V
High Court
11 Feb 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wa/237/2014 Of Joshi Manuel v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V
Date of order
11 Feb 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wa/237/2014 Of Joshi Manuel v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.
Decision: Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR &THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014/22ND MAGHA, 1935
WA.No. 237 of 2014 (C) IN WP(C).29825/2013 --------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 29825/2013 of HIGH COURT OFKERALA DATED 04-12-2013
APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:------------------------
JOSHI MANUEL KARANKAL HOUSE, ELIKULAM P.O., PALA - 686 577. BY ADVS.SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN SMT.NISHA BOSE
RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V KERA BHAVAN, SRV HIGH SCHOOL ROAD, NEAR JEWEL JUNCTION KOCHI - 682 001. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, KOTTAYAM - 686 001. 3. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOTTAYAM RANGE, KOTTAYAM - 686 001.
BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON11-02-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J
& A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
----------------------------------------------
W.A.No. 237 of 2014
----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 11[th] February, 2014JUDGMENT
Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Appellant approached learned Single Judge questioning
conditional order of stay in appeal filed before appellate authority.One-half of the total amount was directed to be deposited as acondition for stay. This came to be reduced to one-third of thetotal amount demanded and to furnish security for the balanceamount to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. LearnedSingle Judge was justified in opining that it is not proper to discussand consider merits of the case at this juncture which wouldprejudice the contentions either of the parties.
2. We are of the opinion, learned Single Judge was justifiedin opining so. We also agree with learned Judge so far as depositof one-third of the total amount etc. However, we direct appellateauthority to dispose of the appeal within six months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this judgment. We also grant another two
WA.237/14
months to deposit the amount as directed by learned Single
Judge.
Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE
vgs11.2.14
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.