Wp(C)/6141/2020 Of Alkanz Money Exchange Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer
High Court
02 Mar 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6141/2020 Of Alkanz Money Exchange Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
02 Mar 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/6141/2020 Of Alkanz Money Exchange Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Decision: The writ petition, withaforementioned observation, will stand disposed of. nak Sd/-AMIT RAWALJUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRE- ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
MONDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH 2020 / 12TH PHALGUNA, 1941
WP(C).No.6141 OF 2020(P)
PETITIONER:
ALKANZ MONEY EXCHANGE PRIVATE LIMITED551, WARD XII KALLIPARAMPIL MEMORIAL BUILDING, KAIPAMANGALAM P.O.,MOONNUPEEDIKA, THRISSUR-680 681, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
BY ADV. SRI.K.I.MAYANKUTTY MATHER
RESPONDENTS:
1INCOME TAX OFFICERWARDI/I,AAYAKARBHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR H.P.O.,THRISSUR-680 001.
2COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS),OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, INCOME TAX OFFICE, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR H.P.O., THRISUSR-680 001.
SRI JOSE JOSEPH SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON02.03.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner in the instant writ petition has challenged theimpugned order Ext.P5 dated 30.01.2020 whereby the 1[st]respondent ie. the Income Tax Officer has granted a conditionalorder of stay directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of thedemanded amount up to 10.02.2020. The learned counsel for thepetitioner attempted to raise certain points on merits of thematter, but I do not deem it to be appropriate as it could be thematter of arguments pending appeals. The reasoning assigned inthe impugned order imposing the condition of 20% apparentlyappears to be correct. Without expressing any opinion on themerits and with a rider that any observation of this Court will notbe construed as an expression of opinion in the pending appeal, Ienlarge the time upto 10.03.2020 for complying with thecondition above mentioned. The writ petition, withaforementioned observation, will stand disposed of.
nak
Sd/-AMIT RAWALJUDGE
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE PRE- ASSESSMENT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN RESPONSE TO THE PRE-ASSESSMENT NOTICE.
EXHIBIT P2 A
TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER TO THE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX.
EXHIBIT P3
TRUE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSEDBY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4
TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5
TRUE COPY OF THE CONDITIONAL ORDER OF STAY PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6
TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.27/2019 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES.
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
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.