Case LawHigh Court › Wp(C)/9664/2016 Of The Kazhakuttom Servi...

Wp(C)/9664/2016 Of The Kazhakuttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer

High Court 15 Mar 2016 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/9664/2016 Of The Kazhakuttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer
Date of order
15 Mar 2016
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

Case summary

In Wp(C)/9664/2016 Of The Kazhakuttom Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Income Tax Officer, 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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH 2016/25TH PHALGUNA, 1937 WP(C)No. 9664 of 2016 (G) PETITIONER:- THE KAZHAKUTTOM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.1457,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KAZHAKUTTOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 582. BY ADVS. SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN & SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV -RESPONDENT(S): 1.THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-2, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, KOWDIAR,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003.THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 003. 2.THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003. BY SRI.K.M.V.PANDALAI, STANDING COUNSEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-03-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: (P.T.O.) Sn WP(C)No. 9664 of 2016 (G) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- -RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS NIL: //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. .............................................................W.P.(C).No.9664 of 2016 .............................................................Dated this the 15[th] day of March, 2016 J U D G M E N T Against Ext.P2 assessment order under the Income Tax Act,the petitioner has preferred Ext.P4 appeal and Ext.P5 stay petitionbefore the 2[nd] respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that evenprior to considering the stay petition, recovery steps are sought tobe pursued for recovery of the amounts confirmed by Ext.P2assessment order. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner andalso the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of thecase as also the submissions made across the Bar, I dispose thewrit petition with the following directions: i. The 2[nd] respondent shall consider and passorders on Ext.P5 stay petition within a period W.P.(C). No.9664 of 2016 of two months from the date of receipt of acopy of this judgment, after hearing thepetitioner. ii. Recovery steps for recovery of amountsconfirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P2assessment order shall be kept in abeyance tillsuch time as orders are passed by the 2[nd]respondentasdirectedaboveandcommunicated to the petitioner. 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.
✅ 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