THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.F 1213 vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while not deciding the merits of the appeal, disposed of the writ petition by directing the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within six months of receiving a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its order and communicates it to the petitioner. The petitioner is required to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal. The specific issue regarding the deduction under Section 80P was not decided on merits by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Sreekrishnapuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and the subsequent order of the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2) which rejected its appeal. The petitioner has filed a further appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core issue revolves around the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner relies on previous High Court judgments where similar matters led to directions for the appellate authority to decide the appeals and a stay on recovery proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner, a Co-Operative Society, is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that the issue concerns the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. They rely on High Court directions in similar cases to consider and pass orders on the appeal and stay recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the context implies the revenue's position is against the deduction claimed by the assessee, as reflected in the assessment and first appellate orders.
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.20323 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.20323 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
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026
- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
