THE ELAPPULLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. F 1193, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the competent Appellate Authority (the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's pending appeal (Ext.P2) as expeditiously as possible. The Court also granted a stay on coercive steps against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The primary focus of the judgment was procedural, ensuring the appeal was heard in a time-bound manner. No specific finding was made on the applicability of the Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. judgment or the validity of the assessment order itself. The issue of whether the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society was implicitly left for the Appellate Authority to decide.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Elappully Service Co-operative Bank Limited, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 24.03.2016, issued by the Income Tax Officer (Respondent 2). The assessment order rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as per the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P2) against this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Respondent 1), arguing that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax now governs the field. The High Court was asked to direct the Appellate Authority to consider the pending appeal expeditiously.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated 24.03.2016, which rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P on the ground that it did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is legally sustainable, considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax [2021 (1) KLT 485]? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the definition of Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the present case, implying the assessment order is incorrect. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. The assessment order itself, however, rejected the deduction on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy 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
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 24.03.2016. 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.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 1st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the competent Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
WP(C) NO. 21278 OF 2022 3
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent / competent Appellate Authority to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, 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. 21278 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
