THE PERAKAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANL LTD NO.F 6916 vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPELAS)
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending appeals (Ext.P3 & Ext.P10) or the stay petitions (Ext.P5, P7, P12 & P14) as expeditiously as possible. The Court also granted a stay on coercive steps against the petitioner until the disposal of either the appeals or the stay petitions. The judgment focuses on procedural direction rather than a substantive decision on the tax dispute. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the court's action was to expedite the appellate process.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Perakarn Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No. F 6916, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, is challenging assessment orders dated 12.09.2021 for assessment years 2008-2009 and 2010-2011. The Assessing Officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating that there was no evidence to show the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the Assessing Officer, despite the assessment orders being issued after this judgment. The petitioner had already preferred appeals and stay petitions before the 1st respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
What were the issues?
1. Whether the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the deduction under Section 80P by failing to consider the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act, and by not considering the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485]. (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969). Assessee's contentions: The Assessing Officer failed to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] when passing the assessment orders, even though the judgment was delivered prior to the assessment orders. The petitioner also implicitly argues that they do satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. Revenue's contentions: No specific contentions are recorded for the revenue in this judgment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 and Ext.P8 orders of assessment, relating to the assessment years 2008-2009 & 2010-2011, were issued against the petitioner on 12.09.2021. In the assessment orders, 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 orders before the 1st respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment
W.P(C) No.1761 of 2022 3 of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Cooperative 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 orders were rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred appeals as Ext.P3 & Ext.P10 and the same are pending consideration before the 1st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals or the stay petitions in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders either on Ext.P3, & Ext.P10, or the stay petitions Ext.P5, P7, P12 & P14 as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of either the appeals or the stay petitions mentioned above, no coercive steps shall be initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to Ext.P1 & Ext.P8 assessment orders.
W.P(C) No.1761 of 2022 4 The writ petition is disposed of as above. MOHAMMED NIAS C.P, JUDGE amk
W.P(C) No.1761 of 2022 5
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 →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
