THE ENGANDIYUR FARMERS SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it noted that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) before the first respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, 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 first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3 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 petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment were thus left to be decided by the appellate authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Engandiyur Farmers Service Co-op Bank Ltd, is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The Assessing Officer issued an assessment order on March 11, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The rejection was based on the ground that the petitioner did not satisfy the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against this assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The petitioner contended that the Supreme Court 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 Assessing Officer erred in rejecting 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 Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the Assessing Officer failed to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, which was delivered before the assessment order was passed. This judgment likely pertains to the eligibility of such societies for deductions under Section 80P. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the petitioner's arguments before the High Court. The assessment order itself rejected the deduction on the basis of the petitioner not satisfying 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 Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Ext.P1 order of assessment was issued against the petitioner on 11.03.2021. 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 Kerala Co- operative Societies Act.
While assailing the assessment order before the 1 st 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
WP(C) NO. 25093 OF 2021 3 the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court Judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P3 and the same is 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 appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1 st 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.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE AMV/12/11//2021
WP(C) NO. 25093 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 →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
