THE MANNARKKAD TALUK AIDED SCHOOL EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD. NO. P 945 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the appeal (Ext.P3) filed by the petitioner within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This direction is to be carried out after hearing the petitioner. The Court also ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the appellate order (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner is required to produce a copy of the judgment and the writ petition before the Tribunal for further action. The specific merits of the Section 80P deduction claim were not decided by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mannarkkad Taluk Aided School Employees Co-Operative Credit Society Ltd., filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala. The petitioner was aggrieved by an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a subsequent order of the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2) which rejected their appeal. The petitioner had filed a further appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies. The petitioner highlighted that the High Court had previously directed appellate authorities to decide similar appeals and granted stay of recovery proceedings.
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 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the appeal before the Tribunal involves the crucial issue of the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to co-operative societies. The petitioner relied on previous High Court judgments where similar directions were issued to appellate authorities to decide appeals and stay recovery proceedings pending disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but their specific contentions or reliance on any authorities, circulars, or precedents are not detailed in the provided text.
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 WP(C).No.20512 OF 2020(L) 3 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 mns
WP(C).No.20512 OF 2020(L) 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 →- J.M.Swamy vs. Government Of INDIAKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
