Wp(C)/34944/2019 Of Kasthoorba Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
19 Dec 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/34944/2019 Of Kasthoorba Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
19 Dec 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/34944/2019 Of Kasthoorba 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
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941WP(C).No.34944 OF 2019
PETITIONER/S:
KASTHOORBA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.681, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE, CHOOTTAYIL, KILIMANOOR.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695601.
BY ADVS.SRI.T.R.HARIKUMARSRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
SC CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON19.12.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P3 rectified order under the Income Tax Act, the petitionerhas preferred Ext.P4 appeal together with Ext.P5 stay petition before the 3[rd]respondent. It is the submission of the petitioner that even prior toconsidering the stay petition, recovery steps are taken by the respondentsagainst the petitioner for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P3rectified order. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that theissue involved in the appeal pertains to dis-allowance of deduction claimedunder Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
2.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedStanding Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as alsothe submissions made across the Bar, and taking note of the fact that insimilar cases, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider andpass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amountspending disposal of the appeal, this Writ Petition is disposed directing the 3[rd]respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P4 appeal within an outertime limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
okb
Recovery steps for recovery of the amounts confirmed against the petitionershall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 3[rd]respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. Thepetitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy ofthis judgment before the 3[rd] respondent for further action.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
//True copy// P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
A TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THEYEAR 2012-2013 DATED 26.3.2015.
EXHIBIT P2
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 8.11.2017 INITA NO.28/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2015-16 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3
A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN ITA NO.28/TVM/CIT(A), TVM/2015-16 ISSUEDBY THE 2ND RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT.
EXHIBIT P4
A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 9.12.2019 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT AND CHELAN.
EXHIBIT P5
A TRUE COPY OF THE STAY PETITION FILED ALONG WITH EXT.P4 APPEAL DATED 9.12.2019.
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.