Wp(C)/26422/2014 Of Sri.abraham Francis Mundakkal House v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
04 Nov 2014 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/26422/2014 Of Sri.abraham Francis Mundakkal House v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
04 Nov 2014
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Wp(C)/26422/2014 Of Sri.abraham Francis Mundakkal House v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2014) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Decision: The petition is dismissed aswithdrawn.
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 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014/13TH KARTHIKA, 1936
WP(C) No. 26422 of 2014 (C)
----------------------------
PETITIONER:
------------------
SRI.ABRAHAM FRANCIS, MUNDAKKAL HOUSE, CHITTADY P.O., ALAKKODE VIA, KANNUR - 670 571.
BY ADV. SRI.DALE P. KURIAN
RESPONDENT(S):
-------------------------
1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
WARD - 4, KANNUR - 670 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
AAYAKAR BHAVAN-NORTH BLOCK, KOZHIKODE - 673 001.
3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
NEW DELHI - 400 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04-11-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
====================================
W.P.(C). No. 26422 of 2014=================================Dated this the 4[th] day of November, 2014
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks forpermission to withdraw the petition without prejudice therights and liberties of the petitioner to approach thisCourt, if necessitated, moulding the pleadings andprayers in a better manner.
Permission is granted. The petition is dismissed aswithdrawn.
Sd/- P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE
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.
EaseValue