Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/7121/2010 Of The Kulikkiliyad Serv...

Wp(C)/7121/2010 Of The Kulikkiliyad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 05 Mar 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/7121/2010 Of The Kulikkiliyad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
05 Mar 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/7121/2010 Of The Kulikkiliyad Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

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

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FRIDAY, THE 5TH MARCH 2010 / 14TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 7121 of 2010(M) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- THE KULIKKILIYAD SERVICE CO-OP. BANK LTD KOTTAPPURAM POST, SREEKRISHNAPURAM(VIA), PALAKKAD DISTRICT, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY SHRI.N.SANKARANKUTTY. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SREEDHARAN SMT.C.K.SHERIN SRI.V.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, KERA BHAVAN, 6TH FLOOR, SRVHS ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. MR. JOSE JOSEPH, SC, INCOME TAX. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. .............................................................................. W.P.(C) No. 7121 OF 2010 ......................................................................... Dated this the 5[th] March, 2010 J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by theauthorities under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner haspreferred Exts. P3 and P4 appeals before the second respondentalong with Exts.P5 and P6 petitions for stay. The petitioner isconstrained to approach this Court because of the coercive stepspursued against the petitioner without any regard to thependency of the above proceedings 2. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondentsas well. 3. Considering the facts and circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orderson Exts.P5 and P6 petitions for stay, in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from thedate of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Till such orders are W.P.(C) No. 7121 OF 2010 2 passed on Exts.P5 and P6 petitions for stay, no further coercive proceedings shall be pursued against the petitioner. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. lk
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 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