Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/27823/2008 Of A. Janardhanan v. Th...

Wp(C)/27823/2008 Of A. Janardhanan v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal &Anoth

High Court 25 Sep 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/27823/2008 Of A. Janardhanan v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal &Anoth
Date of order
25 Sep 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/27823/2008 Of A. Janardhanan v. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal &Anoth, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

Decision: The Writ Petition 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 HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 27823 of 2008(K) --------------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------ SRI.A.JANARDHANAN, ARACKAL HOUSE, OLLUR P.O., TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.A.KUMAR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, KENDRYA BHAVAN, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 037, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), RANGE-2, TRICHUR. BY SHRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC, IT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- W.P.C. NO. 27823 OF 2008 K -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25[th] September, 2008 JUDGMENT Ext.P6 is the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal refusing to grant stay. Case of the petitioner issubstantially that the matter should be taken to be governed byExt.P1, a portion of which, of course, the petitioner haschallenged. According to petitioner, the receipt should be takenas the capital receipt and the relevant assessment does not fallwithin the block assessment. I notice from Ext.P6 that noreasons as such are forthcoming. In such circumstances, I feelthat Ext.P6 cannot be sustained. 2. I heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of thepetitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for theDepartment. Accordingly, Ext.P6 is quashed and it is orderedthat the recovery proceedings will stand stayed till the disposalof Ext.P3 Appeal on condition that the petitioner deposits a sum WPC.27823/08 K of Rs.1,00,000/= (Rupees One Lakh) within a period of two weeks from today. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Sd/= K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // PS to Judge
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