KOTTARAKARA PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD NO.Q 1511, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (2nd respondent), which was pending consideration. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court issued a direction to the competent respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) and the demand notice (Ext.P6) until the disposal of the appeal. No specific finding was made on the correctness of the assessment or the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kottarakkara Primary Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The Income Tax Officer passed an assessment order on April 30, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The reason for rejection was the alleged lack of evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner challenged this assessment order before the Income Tax Officer, arguing that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the situation and renders the assessment incorrect. An appeal was filed with the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), which was pending.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order rejecting the deduction under Section 80P is incorrect in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax? Assessee's contentions: The assessee argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the field and renders the assessment order, which rejected the claim for deduction under Section 80P, incorrect. The assessee's primary contention is that the assessment itself is flawed due to this legal precedent. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the assessee's arguments at this stage.
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 30.04.2021. 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.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 2nd 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.
WP(C) NO. 22397 OF 2022 3
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the competent among the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 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 and Ext.P6 demand notice.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. GOPINATH P. JUDGE ajt
WP(C) NO. 22397 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 →- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Prafulla Chandra Khatua, Mayurbhanj vs. The State Tax Officer Of CT And GST, MayurbhanjOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sidhivinayak Roadways, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of GST And Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate, RourkelaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
