Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/6605/2016 Of Mararikulam Service C...

Wp(C)/6605/2016 Of Mararikulam Service Co-Op Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax

High Court 03 Mar 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/6605/2016 Of Mararikulam Service Co-Op Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax
Date of order
03 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/6605/2016 Of Mararikulam Service Co-Op Bank Limited v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax, the High Court (2016) decided the matter.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH 2016/13TH PHALGUNA, 1937 PETITIONER(S) :-------------------------- WP(C).No. 6605 of 2016 (A) --------------------------- 1. MARARIKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. MARARIKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THAMMANAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO.E 182 THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. THAMMANAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. UDAYAMPEROOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO.747 UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. UDAYAMPEROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. THRIKKAKARA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO. E 148, VADACODE, KANGARAPADY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 5. EROOR SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO.E 859, EROOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 6. THIRUVAMKULAM SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO.26 THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT THIRUVAMKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 7. VENNALA SERVICE CO-OP BANK LIMITED NO.E 774, VENNALA, KOCHI-28, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. VENNALA, KOCHI-28, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 8. ERNAKULAM URBAN CO-OP SOCIETY LIMITED NO.7, COCHIN 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS RESPONDENT(S) : ---------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682011. I.S. PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682011. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO.2, ALAPPUZHA-685001. 3. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5, NON CORPORATE, KOCHI-682 011. WARD 5, NON CORPORATE, KOCHI-682 011. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 6605 of 2016 (A) -------------------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS :------------------------------------- EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF NOTICE DATED 4.12.2015. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 29.1.2016. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS : NIL ----------------------------------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Mn A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. .............................................................W.P.(C).No.6605 of 2016 .............................................................Dated this the 3[rd] day of March, 2016 J U D G M E N T The petitioners had approached this Court aggrieved byExts.P1 and P2 penalty notices issued to them under the IncomeTax Act. When the matter was taken up for admission, it waspointed out by the learned Standing counsel for the respondentsthat Exts.P1 and P2 notices have since been withdrawn. Takingnote of the said submission, and finding that the grievance of thepetitioners in the writ petition does not survive, the writ petition isclosed as infructuous. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ Respond to a penalty notice → 💬 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