Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/29944/2008 Of M/S.k.k.valsan & Co...

Wp(C)/29944/2008 Of M/S.k.k.valsan & Co v. Income Tax Officer

High Court 14 Oct 2008 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/29944/2008 Of M/S.k.k.valsan & Co v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
14 Oct 2008
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/29944/2008 Of M/S.k.k.valsan & Co v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2008) decided the matter.

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 TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29944 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M/S.K.K. VALSAN AND CO., PP 1/380, KOYAKANDY HOUSE, PAYYOLI PANCHAYATH, IRINGAL.P.O, KOYILANDY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, K.K. VALSAN. BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM SMT.MABLE.C.KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2 (1), KOZHIKODE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, CALICUT. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC FOR IT THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH, J. ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 29944 OF 2008 M ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 14[th] day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order of assessment, petitioner has preferred Ext.P3 appeal. There is a petition seekingcondonation of delay and an application for stay. 2.I heard learned counsel for the petitioner andlearned standing counsel appearing on behalf of therespondents Sri.Jose Joseph. Learned standing counselpoints out that a perusal of Ext.P5 would show that there is anorder permitting the petitioner to pay the due amount ininstalments of Rs.50,000/- per month. 3.Having considered the facts of the case, writpetition is disposed of as follows. There will be a direction to the 2[nd] respondent to take upExt.P4 and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. If thedelay is condoned, a decision shall be taken on Ext.P6 inaccordance with law within one month from the date of receipt WPC.29944/08 : 2 : of a copy of this judgment. Recovery proceedings will be keptin abeyance till a decision is so taken on condition that thepetitioner pays a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousandonly) within two weeks from today. aks Sd/-(K.M.JOSEPH, JUDGE) // TRUE COPY // P.A. 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