Wp(C)/4167/2020 Of Malayankil Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
High Court
13 Feb 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/4167/2020 Of Malayankil Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
13 Feb 2020
Assessment year(s)
2016-17
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/4167/2020 Of Malayankil Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: 2.Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, thewrit petition is disposed of with a direction to the thirdrespondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 Appeal in accordancewith law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner, within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of...
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 AMIT RAWAL
THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 24TH MAGHA, 1941
WP(C).No.4167 OF 2020(U)
PETITIONER/S:
MALAYANKIL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.,NO.605, HEAD OFFICE, MARKET JUNCTION, MALAYINKIL P O, TRIVANDRUM-695571, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY RAMACHANDRAN K.
BY ADV. SRI.S.ARUN RAJ
RESPONDENT/S:
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON13.02.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of February 2020
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking a directionto dispose of Ext.P2 Appeal preferred before the thirdrespondent/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against theassessment order Ext.P1.
2.Having heard the learned counsel on both sides, thewrit petition is disposed of with a direction to the thirdrespondent to take a decision on Ext.P2 Appeal in accordancewith law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to thepetitioner, within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment without insisting onpayment of 20% of the tax demanded, as per circular of 2017.Till such time a decision is taken on the appeal, recoveryproceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept inabeyance.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL
JUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2016-17.18.12.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17.THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 24.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17.BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR THE AY 2016-17.
EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.1.2020 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN THE CASES OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES ON THE ISSUE OF SECTION 80 P DEDUCTION.PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN IN THE CASES OF PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CREDIT SOCIETIES ON THE ISSUE OF SECTION 80 P DEDUCTION.
EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.28170 OF 2019 IN SIMILAR CASE.23.10.2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC NO.28170 OF 2019 IN SIMILAR CASE.
EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 4.12.2019IN WP(C) NO.27295 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN SIMILAR MATER IN THE CASE OF PACS.IN WP(C) NO.27295 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN SIMILAR MATER IN THE CASE OF PACS.
EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.11.2019 IN WPC NO. 31037 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT, IN SIMILAR MATER IN THE CASE OF PACS.16.11.2019 IN WPC NO. 31037 OF 2019 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT, IN SIMILAR MATER IN THE CASE OF PACS.
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.