Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/30068/2019 Of The Manickal Service...

Wp(C)/30068/2019 Of The Manickal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 08 Nov 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/30068/2019 Of The Manickal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
08 Nov 2019
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/30068/2019 Of The Manickal Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2019) decided the matter.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1941WP(C).No.30068 OF 2019(G) PETITIONER/S: THE MANICKAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1910REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY , PIRAPPANCODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 607 BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMARSRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN RESPONDENT/S: SRI.CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON08.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner haspreferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3[rd]respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that even prior to considering the staypetition, recovery steps are taken by the respondents against the petitioner forrecovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P3 rectified order. It is stated by thelearned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal pertains todis-allowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. 2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also thelearned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also thesubmissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that in similarmatters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and passorders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending disposalof the appeal, this Writ petition is disposed directing the 3[rd] respondent to considerand pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within an outer time limit of six months.Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner shall bekept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3[rd] respondent asdirected above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce acopy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3[rd]respondent for further action. Sd/-A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIARJUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: sd
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