TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT MERCANTILE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it acknowledged that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P4) before the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)), which was pending consideration. The Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. The first respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously, within two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps would be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P2) until the disposal of the appeal. No specific issue was left undecided, as the court's action was procedural.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Trivandrum District Mercantile Co-operative Society Ltd., is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The Assessing Officer issued an assessment order on March 15, 2024 (Ext.P2), rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The reason for rejection was the alleged lack of evidence demonstrating that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner challenged this assessment order by filing an appeal (Ext.P4) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the first respondent. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the situation and renders the assessment incorrect.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated March 15, 2024, rejecting the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is valid, considering the petitioner's status as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner contended that the assessment order is incorrect, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which they argue governs the field. They believe this judgment supports their claim for deduction. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments before the High Court. The assessment order itself stated that there was no evidence to show the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT
Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P2 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 15.03.2024. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show that petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.
While assailing the assessment order before the 1st respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs the field thereby rendering the assessment itself as incorrect.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P4 and the same is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
WP(C) NO. 16080 OF 2024 3
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 assessment order . The writ petition is disposed of as above. SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE ajt
WP(C) NO. 16080 OF 2024 4
Appendix — schedule of exhibits
More judgments on Section 80P
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Duddukuru Primary Agricultural Cooperative… vs ITO, Ward - 1, TadepalligudemITA 258/VIZ/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Jijamata Mahila Gramin Bigar Sheti Sahakari… vs ITO Ward -1, BhandraITA 102/NAG/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Shri Na vs Ari Khedut Sahkari Society Ltd…ITA 362/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. V J Petro Products vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St) - IiiAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Shining Steel Through Its Proprietor Kartik Gupta vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Redamancy World Through Its Proprietor Sanjay Kumar Goel vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs & Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Arj Exim INDIA vs. Additional Commissioner Of CGST, Appeals-Ii, New Delhi And OrsDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
