PEECHI SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide on the merits of the case. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by issuing a direction to the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending appeal (Ext.P3) expeditiously, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 until the disposal of the appeal. The primary issue regarding the validity of the assessment order and the applicability of the Mavilayi judgment was left to be decided by the appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Peechi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) issued by the Income Tax Officer. The deduction claimed by the petitioner under Section 80P was rejected on the grounds that it did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner had filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, which is pending. The petitioner argues that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the field and renders the assessment incorrect. The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal within a time-bound manner and stayed coercive steps until disposal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order rejecting the deduction under Section 80P is valid, considering the petitioner's status as a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argues that the assessment order is incorrect because the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2021 (1) KLT 485) governs the field and supports its claim for deduction. The assessee contends that it satisfies the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the assessment order, rejected the deduction on the ground that the petitioner failed to provide evidence to show it satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. No specific arguments from the revenue are recorded in the judgment regarding the Mavilayi judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T 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. 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 3rd 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.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent), I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Tribunal to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 3rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be -3- initiated against the petitioner pursuant to Exts.P1. The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE TR -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 →- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026