Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/7128/2018 Of M/S. Kuthanur Service...

Wp(C)/7128/2018 Of M/S. Kuthanur Service Co-Operative v. Income Tax Officer

High Court 02 Mar 2018 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/7128/2018 Of M/S. Kuthanur Service Co-Operative v. Income Tax Officer
Date of order
02 Mar 2018
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wp(C)/7128/2018 Of M/S. Kuthanur Service Co-Operative v. Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2018) decided the matter.

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 P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 11TH PHALGUNA, 1939 WP(C).No. 7128 of 2018 PETITIONER(S) M/S. KUTHANUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F-1563 KUTHANUR POST, PALAKKAD 678 721 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY T SURESH KUMAR BY ADV.SRI.S.ARUN RAJ RESPONDENT(S): 1. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5 OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PALAKKAD RANGE, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, EC ROAD, PALAKKAD 678 014 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPELAS) AYAKAR BHAVAN, SAKTHAN THAMPURAN NAGAR, THRISSUR 680 001 R BY SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02-03-2018,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS SKS //TRUE COPY//SD/-P.A. TO JUDGE P.B.SURESH KUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = =W.P.(C).No. 7128 of 2018= = = = = = = = = = = = =Dated this the 2[nd] day of March, 2018 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent.Aggrieved by Ext.P1 series assessment orders, thepetitioner preferred Ext.P2 series appeals before thesecond respondent. Ext.P3 series are the applications forstay preferred by the petitioner in Ext.P2 series appeals.The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petitionconcerns the delay on the part of the second respondentin passing orders on Ext.P3 series applications for stay. Itis alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition thatproceedings have already been initiated for realisation ofthe amounts covered by Ext.P1 series orders. Thepetitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this writ petition. 2.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioneras also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writpetition directing the second respondent to take a decisionon Ext.P3 series applications for stay, within two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Orderedaccordingly. Needless to say that until orders are passed onExt.P3 series applications for stay, further proceedings forrealisation of the amounts covered by Ext.P1 seriesassessment orders shall be deferred. Sd/- P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE.
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