Wp(C)/9449/2019 Of The Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Appellate Authority
High Court
27 Mar 2019 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/9449/2019 Of The Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Appellate Authority
Date of order
27 Mar 2019
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
Case summary
In Wp(C)/9449/2019 Of The Mayyanad Regional Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Appellate Authority, the High Court (2019) 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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI
WEDNESDAY,THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 6TH CHAITHRA, 1941WP(C).No. 9449 of 2019
PETITIONER:
THE MAYYANAD REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.MAYYANAD BANK BUILDING, MAYYANAD, KOLLAM-691 302, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE.
BY ADVS.SRI.V.JAYAPRADEEPSMT.ANN SUSAN GEORGESMT.O.A.NURIYASRI.ALAN PRIYADARSHI DEVSRI.D.S.LOKANATHAN
RESPONDENTS:
1THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE AUTHORITY(THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.
2INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD NO.4, KOLLAM-691 001
SC SRI. CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.03.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 9449 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri. Jayapradeep. V, the learned counsel for thepetitioner and Sri. Christopher Abraham, the learned StandingCounsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner prays for mandamus declaring Ext.P5 as
illegal etc. The petitioner has filed appeal against theAssessment Order dated 26.12.2018 in Ext.P3 and stay petitionin Ext.P4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner is satisfied if the 1[st] respondent is directed toconsider and dispose of Ext.P4 expeditiously preferably withintwo weeks.
3. The learned Standing Counsel does not oppose theprayer for disposing of Ext.P4 stay petition and to furnishorder. Hence the 1st respondent considers and disposes ofExt.P4 stay petition within four weeks from today. In theinterregnum there shall be stay of further steps if any pursuant
WP(C).No. 9449 of 2019
to the Assessment under appeal before the 1[st] respondent. Theinterim order now granted by this Court shall not beunderstood as one granted after considering the merits of thematter. It is for the 1st respondent to consider the prayer inaccordance with law and pass orders on its merits.
Sd/-S.V.BHATTIJUDGE
JS
WP(C).No. 9449 of 2019
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED12.2.1957REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DATED12.2.1957
EXHIBIT P2COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.12.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-1726.12.2018 FOR THE YEAR 2016-17
EXHIBIT P3COPY OF THE PRINT -OUTS OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED ONLINE DATED 17.01.2019PREFERRED ONLINE DATED 17.01.2019
EXHIBIT P4COPY OF THE STAY PETITION DATED 15.01.201915.01.2019
EXHIBIT P5COPY OF THE RECOVERY ORDER DATED 11.02.2019, SERVED ON 13.02.201911.02.2019, SERVED ON 13.02.2019
EXHIBIT P6COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05.03.2019 OF R1R1
EXHIBIT P7COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C0.5144/2019DATED 20.02.2019DATED 20.02.2019
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.