ANAD FARMER'S SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. vs. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), deemed it appropriate to direct the appellate authority to consider the appeal in a time-bound manner. The Court did not decide on the merits of the Section 80P deduction or the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment. Instead, the operative direction was for the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The issue of whether the assessing officer erred in not considering the Supreme Court judgment was implicitly deferred to the appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Anad Farmer's Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order on December 26, 2019. The assessing officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating there was no evidence that the petitioner met the criteria for a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner appealed this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In their appeal, the petitioner argued that a Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, rendered after the assessment order, was not considered by the assessing officer. The writ petition was filed seeking a direction for the appellate authority to consider the appeal expeditiously.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred by not considering the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, when passing the assessment order dated 26.12.2019, particularly concerning the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was passed subsequent to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, and this crucial judgment was not considered by the assessing officer. The petitioner relied on this judgment to support their claim for deduction under Section 80P. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue regarding this issue.
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 Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 26.12.2019. 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 WP(C) NO. 20309 OF 2021 3 considered by the assessing officer though the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 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.P2, as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of the appeal, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/28/09//2021
WP(C) NO. 20309 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 →- M/S Gujarat Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited vs. Union Of INDIAGujarat · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co Operative Housing Society LTDBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Ramesh K Devadiga And Ors vs. Khernagar Nandadeep Co-Operative Housing Society LTD And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Permender Singh vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.Calcutta · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Abdhish Dhal Samanta, Bhubaneswar vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
