THE TRIKARIPUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide on the merits of the assessment orders or the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment. Instead, the Court noted that the petitioner had already preferred statutory appeals (Ext.P2 and Ext.P4) against the assessment orders (Ext.P1 and Ext.P3), and these appeals were pending before the 1st respondent (Appellate Authority). Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority to consider the pending appeals in a time-bound manner. The Court directed the 1st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 appeals expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court granted a stay on coercive steps being initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 assessment orders until the disposal of the appeals. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court chose to defer the decision to the appellate forum.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Trikaripur Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The assessment orders for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 were issued on December 18, 2019, and April 30, 2021, respectively. The Assessing Officer rejected the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P, stating there was no evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as per the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed statutory appeals against these assessment orders, which are pending before the Appellate Authority (1st respondent). The petitioner intends to argue that the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax governs the field and renders the assessments incorrect.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessment orders for AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 are liable to be set aside on the ground that the Assessing Officer erred in rejecting the claim for deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by not considering the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argues that the assessment orders are incorrect because they fail to consider the binding precedent set by the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which governs the field concerning deductions for Primary Agricultural Credit Societies. The petitioner has preferred statutory appeals against these orders. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions from the revenue side in relation to the writ petition. However, the assessment orders indicate the revenue's stance that the petitioner did not provide evidence to satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society.
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 for the year 2017-18 was issued against the petitioner on 18.12.2019 while Ext.P3 assessment order for 2018- 19 was issued on 30.04.2021. 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, in the statutory appeals, 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,
WP(C) NO. 26444 OF 2021 3 Calicut and Others [2021 (1) KLT 485] now governs the field thereby rendering the assessment itself as incorrect.
Since the petitioner has already preferred appeals as Ext.P2 and Ext.P4, and the same are pending consideration before the 1 st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the Appellate Authority to consider the appeals in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1 st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 appeals as expeditiously as possible.
Till the disposal of the appeals, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 and Ext.P3 assessment orders. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE AJM
WP(C) NO. 26444 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 →- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Jeyarani Shopping Centre vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1/The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerMadras · 14 Oct 2026
- Rohan Tanna vs. Directorate General Of Goods And Services Tax IntelligenceChhattisgarh · 14 Oct 2026
- Dipak Saikia vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
