THE PALAKKAD TALUK GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED NO. P 758 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent) to consider and pass orders on the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also clarified 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 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 3rd respondent for further action. The core issue of the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P was not decided on merits by the High Court but was remanded for consideration by the Tribunal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Palakkad Taluk Government Employees Co-operative Society Limited, is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and an order of the First Appellate Authority (Ext.P2) which rejected their appeal. The Society then 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 permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning co-operative societies. The petitioner relies on previous High Court directives in similar cases where appellate authorities were instructed to decide appeals and recovery proceedings were stayed pending disposal.
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 deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, and if so, within what timeframe? Assessee's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the issue involves the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies. They pointed out that the High Court has previously directed appellate authorities to consider appeals and stay recovery proceedings in similar matters. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's learned Standing Counsel 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 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 WP(C).No.19965 OF 2020(U) 3 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.19965 OF 2020(U) 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 →- Kniit Net Industries Private Limited, Khurda vs. Superintendent Of CGST And Central Excise, Bhubaneswar Ii CircleOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Swarnapai Chemicals (Opc) Private Limited, Cuttack vs. Sales Tax Officer, Cuttack IOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S. Middlex, Puri vs. Commnr. Of State Tax, Banijyakar Bhawan, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Sunadei Indane Gramin Vitrak, Nayagarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Cuttack, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Sunanda Raul vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods Nad Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
