KARAMUCK SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.16 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, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was pending consideration. Therefore, the 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 first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the deduction under Section 80P was not adjudicated upon by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Karamuck Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. 16, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is challenging an assessment order dated September 24, 2022. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that there was no evidence that the petitioner met the criteria of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner contends that the assessing officer failed to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, despite the assessment order being passed after this judgment. The petitioner has filed an appeal against the assessment order, which is pending before the first respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of this appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the deduction under Section 80P without considering the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, when the assessment order was passed subsequent to this judgment? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 80P of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider the binding Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, which was delivered prior to the assessment order. The petitioner also argued that the assessment order did not contain evidence to show that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. 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 Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 24.9.2022. 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 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 and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer, though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
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 be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated
WP(C) NO. 33846 OF 2022 3 pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE okb/ //// P.S. to Judge
WP(C) NO. 33846 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 →- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Giri Paints vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
- Rahul Radheshyam Chauhan vs. Union Of INDIA Thru The Sec. Ministry Of Law And Justice And OrsBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- S.Murugesan vs. The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
