Wp(C)/41112/2018 Of M/S. Sfo Technologies Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax
High Court
18 Dec 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/41112/2018 Of M/S. Sfo Technologies Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax
Date of order
18 Dec 2018
Assessment year(s)
2014-15
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/41112/2018 Of M/S. Sfo Technologies Private Limited v. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.
Decision: Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
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 DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU TUESDAY ,THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA,1940
WP(C).No. 41112 of 2018
PETITIONER/S:
M/S. SFO TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITEDPLOT NO. 37, COCHIN SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN 682 037 REPRESENTED BY COMPANY SECRETARY K PADMANABHAN.
BY ADVS.SRI.ANIL D. NAIRSHRI.GOKULRAJ L.SMT. ARYA ANILSMT. NILOOFAR O. NIZAMSRI.SREEJITH R.NAIR
RESPONDENT/S:
1ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAXCORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1),KOCHI 682018CORPORATE CIRCLE 2 (1),KOCHI 682018
2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -IIKOCHI 682 018
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI JOSE JOSEPH, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C). No. 41112 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, an assessee had its assessment completed
for 201-15. Later the petitioner claims to have filed a statutoryappeal, besides an application under Section 220(6) of the Income
Tax Act. Now it apprehends that before the appeal could be takeup, the Assistant Commissioner will initiate coercive steps torecover the tax dues.
2.In response to the submissions made by thepetitioner's counsel, the learned Standing Counsel informs theCourt that as the appeal is pending before the secondrespondent, the petitioner seems to have filed an applicationunder Section 220(6) before the Assistant Commissioner.According to him, that authority will consider the petitioner'sExt.P3 application, expeditiously. So be it.
3.Needless to observe that, before the AssistantCommissioner will considers the petitioner's Ext.P3 application,
he will defer all coercive steps.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU
JUDGE
das
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 DATED 31-12-2016 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY THE APPEAL DATED 04-02-2017 FILED AND PENDING BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENTEXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 220(6) FILED BY THE PETITIONERBEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT
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.