KERALA STATE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT STAFF HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal. Instead, the Court found that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, the High Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 (the appeal) as expeditiously as possible. Additionally, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P2 assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the petitioner is eligible for deduction under Section 80P was expressly left undecided by the High Court, as it was to be determined by the appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kerala State Commercial Tax Department Staff Housing Co-operative Society Ltd, is a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. An assessment order dated March 8, 2024 (Ext.P2) was issued against the petitioner. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction, stating that its income was not eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 3rd respondent, arguing that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax was not considered by the assessing officer, despite the assessment order being passed after this judgment.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax? Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which was rendered prior to the assessment order. The petitioner contended that this judgment should have been applied to their case. 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 revenue was represented by counsel, but their arguments on the merits of the assessment or the appeal are not detailed.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 3rd respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
WP(C) NO. 15785 OF 2024 3
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible.
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. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ab
WP(C) NO. 15785 OF 2024 4 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15785/2024 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED 17-06-2022 FILED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-19 Exhibit P2OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/1062251141(1) DATED 08-03-2024 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 BY THE 2NDRESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P3OF THE APPEAL DATED 03-04-2024 FILED FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 BEFORE THE 3RDRESPONDENT BY THE PETITIONER Exhibit P4OF THE DEMAND NOTICE NO. ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/1062251371(1) DATED 08-03-2024 ISSUED FOR THE YEAR 2018-19 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER Exhibit P5OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 23-02- 2022 IN WPC NO 6109 OF 2022 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
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 →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026
