THE KUMARAMPUTHUR CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, 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. The Tribunal was also directed to hear the petitioner before passing orders. Crucially, 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 instructed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal. The judgment did not decide the merits of the deduction under Section 80P.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kumaramputhur Co-operative Housing Society Limited, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Kerala challenging assessment orders. The petitioner had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority (CIT(A)) against an assessment order (Ext.P1), which was rejected by Ext.P2. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the third respondent. The core issue in the appeal pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning co-operative societies. The petitioner highlighted that the High Court had previously directed appellate authorities to decide similar appeals and granted stays on recovery proceedings pending disposal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner concerning the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies? Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue involved is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies. They relied on previous High Court orders where similar matters were directed to be considered by the appellate authority, and recovery proceedings were stayed pending disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue regarding the issues raised by the petitioner.
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.20526 OF 2020(M) 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.20526 OF 2020(M) 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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Santa Singh vs. SuperintendentUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- Azaad Builders vs. Assistant Commissioner SGSTUttarakhand · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Kalra Traders vs. Union Of INDIAUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- Ms Isoft vs. The Commissioner State TaxUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
- M/S Sita Enterprises vs. Office Of The CommissionerUttarakhand · 26 Oct 2026
