THE KOONAMMOOCHI PEOPLES SERVICE CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. 603 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it acknowledged that the petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) challenging the assessment order (Ext.P1). 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. Consequently, the 1st respondent was directed to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The specific finding on the Section 80P deduction or the applicability of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank judgment was left for the appellate authority to decide.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Koonammoochi Peoples Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 603, is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. The Income Tax Officer issued an assessment order (Ext.P1) on September 26, 2022, rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The reason for rejection was the alleged lack of evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined by the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner challenged this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the 1st respondent, by filing an appeal (Ext.P3). The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2021 (1) KLT 485] governs the situation and renders the assessment incorrect.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated 26.09.2022, which rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P on the grounds that it did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, is legally sustainable, considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2021 (1) KLT 485]? (Question of law) Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order is incorrect because the prevailing law, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another [2021 (1) KLT 485], supports its claim for deduction under Section 80P. The petitioner has already preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) before the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to address this. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in this writ petition.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 26.09.2022. 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 canvas that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another [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.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 1st 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. 39031 OF 2022 3
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st 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.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE DK
WP(C) NO. 39031 OF 2022 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 →- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026