THE MANNARKKAD RURAL SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, vs. THE ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent (appellate authority) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the appellate authority to consider the pending appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the appeal expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment were left to be decided by the appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Mannarkkad Rural Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated May 26, 2021. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority (2nd respondent) challenging this assessment order. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485], which was rendered prior to the assessment order, was not considered by the assessing officer.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated May 26, 2021, which rejected the deduction under Section 80P on the grounds that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is valid, considering the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485]? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's contentions: The assessing officer failed to consider the binding Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] when passing the assessment order, despite it being rendered prior to the assessment. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions were recorded for the revenue in this regard.
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 Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 26.05.2021. In the assessment order, petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected on the ground that there was no evidence to show that petitioner satisfied the ingredients of the Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act.
While assailing the assessment order before the 2 nd respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
WP(C) NO. 4202 OF 2022 3
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P4 and the same is pending consideration before the 2 nd respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 2 nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4, as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/09/02//2022
WP(C) NO. 4202 OF 2022 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 →- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Ritik vs. State Of M.P.Madhya Pradesh · 16 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- U Days Garments vs. The Adjudication OfficerMadras · 16 Oct 2026
