THE NAGARIPURAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances, the submissions made, and the precedent of granting stay of recovery proceedings in similar cases pending disposal of appeals, disposed of the writ petition. The 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) was directed to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P3) within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court clarified that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 and P2 orders would be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its order and communicates it to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the 3rd respondent for further action. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 80P deduction.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Nagaripuram Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) and a subsequent appeal rejection order (Ext.P2) passed by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), respectively. The petitioner filed a further appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the 3rd respondent. The core issue pertains to the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for Co-Operative Societies. The petitioner seeks a direction for the ITAT to consider their appeal and a stay on recovery proceedings pending the appeal's disposal. The High Court heard arguments from both sides.
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, and if so, within what timeframe? 2. Whether recovery proceedings for the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 and P2 orders should be stayed pending the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue involved is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies. They relied on previous High Court judgments where similar directions were issued to appellate authorities to consider appeals and stay recovery proceedings in the interim. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records that the learned Standing Counsel appeared for the respondents, but their specific contentions are not detailed.
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
WP(C).No.19860 OF 2020(F) 3 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 WP(C).No.19860 OF 2020(F) 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 →- Zakir Hussain Ali Khan vs. Additional Commissioner (Appeals), BhubaneswarOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Manorama Nayak, Khorda vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar Iv Circle, KhurdaOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Chandan Kumar Bathual vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Cuttack-Iii Range, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Manoranjan Sadangi vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, Gopalpur Range, GanjamOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Bijaya Kumar Parekh vs. State Tax Officer, CT And GST Balangir Circle, BalangirOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
