VAKKOM FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. Instead, the Court noted that the petitioner had already filed an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and that this appeal was pending. Consequently, 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 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court granted interim relief by stating that no coercive steps would be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P2) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the deduction under Section 80P was rightly denied was expressly left undecided by the High Court.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Vakkom Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated April 16, 2021. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that the petitioner did not provide evidence to satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined by the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner challenged this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, rendered prior to the assessment order, was not considered by the assessing officer.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment order dated April 16, 2021, correctly rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by failing to consider the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was erroneous as it failed to consider the binding judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, which was delivered subsequent to the assessment order. The petitioner contended that this judgment should have been considered by the assessing officer. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments before the High Court.
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.P2 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 16.04.2021. 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 3 rd 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. 22421 OF 2021 3
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 and the same is pending consideration before the 3 rd 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 3 rd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P2 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/21/10//2021
WP(C) NO. 22421 OF 2021 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 →- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
