Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/9343/2010 Of Rubfila International...

Wp(C)/9343/2010 Of Rubfila International Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 19 Mar 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/9343/2010 Of Rubfila International Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
19 Mar 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/9343/2010 Of Rubfila International Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, the High Court (2010) decided the matter.

Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of.

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 19TH MARCH 2010 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 9343 of 2010(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- RUBFILA INTERNATIONAL LTD., NIDA, MENON PARA ROAD, KANJIKODE.P.O, PALAKKAD-678 621, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER M.SUDHESH. BY MR.M.PATHROSE MATTHAI, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. MR.SAJI VARGHESE SMT.MARIAM MATHAI RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS), PALAKKAD RANGE, PALAKKAD. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, KERA BHAVAN, SRVHS ROAD, KOCHI-682 011. BY ADV. MR.JOSE JOSEPH, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J --------------------------- ---------------------------- Dated this the 19[th] day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Being aggrieved of Exts.P2 and P2(a) assessment orders passed bythe first respondent in respect of assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 and P3(a) appeals before thesecond respondent, along with Exts.P5 and P5(a) petitions for stay, whichare pending consideration before the second respondent. The petitioneris constrained to approach this Court in view of Ext.P4 notice issued bythe first respondent, for realisation of the amount stated as due underExt.P1, without any regard to the pendency of the proceedings. 2.Heard the learned Government Pleader as well.3.Considering the facts and circumstances, the secondrespondent is directed to consider and pass appropriate orders onExts.P5 and P5(a) petitions for stay, in accordance with law, asexpeditiously as possible, at any rate within one month from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that, till appropriateorders are passed on Exts.P5 and P5(a) petitions for stay, all furtherproceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 shall be kept in abeyance. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENONJUDGE ab
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