THE SREEKRISHNAPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO. F1213 vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, and noting that similar cases have resulted in the grant of stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal of appeals, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within six months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 and P2 orders shall be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the 3rd respondent.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Sreekrishnapuram Service Co-Operative Bank 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 from the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2) which rejected their appeal. Consequently, the petitioner 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 deductibility under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning co-operative societies. The petitioner sought a direction for the Tribunal to consider their appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal should be directed to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner concerning the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for 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 instances where this Court had directed appellate authorities to consider appeals and granted stay of recovery proceedings pending disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment records no specific contention from the revenue's side regarding the direction to the Tribunal or the stay of recovery proceedings.
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 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
WP(C).No.20247 OF 2020(E) 3 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 SJ
WP(C).No.20247 OF 2020(E) 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
