THE MALAMPUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions made, acknowledged that in similar cases, it has granted a stay of recovery proceedings pending the disposal of appeals by the appellate authority. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 3rd respondent (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal within an outer time limit of six months from the receipt of the judgment's copy, after hearing the petitioner. The Court also clarified that recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by Exts.P1 and P2 orders would be kept in abeyance until the Tribunal passes its orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner is to furnish a copy of the judgment and the writ petition to the Tribunal.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Malampuzha Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., is challenging an assessment order (Ext.P1) passed by the Income Tax Officer. Their initial appeal before the First Appellate Authority was rejected by Ext.P2 order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal (Ext.P3) along with a stay petition (Ext.P4) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (3rd respondent). The core of the dispute revolves around the deductibility under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act concerning co-operative societies. The petitioner highlights that similar matters have seen High Court directions for the appellate authority to decide the appeal and grant a stay on recovery proceedings in the interim.
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 permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act in its application to Co-Operative Societies, and if recovery proceedings should be stayed pending disposal of the appeal. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argues that the issue pertains to the deductibility under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act for co-operative societies. They rely on the precedent set by this High Court in similar cases where directions were issued to the appellate authority to decide the appeal and stay recovery proceedings. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue.
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 WP(C).No.19740 OF 2020(N) 3 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 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 mns
WP(C).No.19740 OF 2020(N) 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
