THE KADANNAMANNA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.10561 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions made, and the precedent of granting stay of recovery proceedings in similar cases, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance until such time as orders are passed by the Tribunal and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal for further action. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 80P deduction.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Kadannamanana Service Co-Operative Bank Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner had an assessment order (Ext.P1) against which an appeal to the First Appellate Authority was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue in the appeal pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner pointed out that the High Court had previously directed appellate authorities to consider appeals and stay recovery proceedings in similar matters.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the High Court should direct the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal against the assessment order and the order of the First Appellate Authority, and in the interim, stay recovery proceedings. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue involved is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. They relied on previous High Court judgments where similar directions were issued to appellate authorities to consider appeals and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue's side.
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 Against Ext.P1 assessment order under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority but the same was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 appeal along with Ext.P4 stay petition before the 3rd respondent. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. It is pointed out that in similar matters this Court has directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery proceedings, in the meanwhile.
I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the Bar and the finding that in similar cases this Court has granted stay of recovery proceedings, pending disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority, I dispose the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal preferred by the petitioner within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. I also make it clear that till such time as orders are passed by the 3rd respondent in the appeal as directed above and the orders communicated to the petitioner, recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment together with a copy of the writ petition before the 3rd respondent for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
JUDGE WP(C).No.26545 OF 2020(P) 3
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 →- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
