THE NATTIKA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO R-308 , vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, in a writ petition, did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal. Instead, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already preferred an appeal (Ext.P3) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (1st respondent) and that this appeal was pending. Therefore, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition by directing the competent Appellate Authority (the 1st respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the pending appeal (Ext.P3) expeditiously. The Court also granted interim relief by directing that no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the disposal of the appeal. The specific findings on the issues of Section 80P deduction or the applicability of the Supreme Court judgment were not made by the High Court in this order.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, The Nattika Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order dated 31.03.2021. 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 as defined by the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner appealed this assessment order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In their appeal, the petitioner argued that the assessing officer failed to consider the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2021 (1) KLT 485], even though the assessment order was passed after this judgment.
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 Co-operative Societies Act, 1969? 2. Whether the assessing officer failed to consider the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2021 (1) KLT 485], while passing the assessment order dated 31.03.2021? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessing officer's rejection of the Section 80P deduction was erroneous. They specifically contended that the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2021 (1) KLT 485], which was delivered prior to the assessment order, was not considered by the assessing officer. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition.
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 31.03.2021. 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 Co-operative Societies Act.
While assailing the assessment order before the 1st respondent, petitioner has sought to canvass that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mavilayi Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer
WP(C) NO. 24804 OF 2021 3 though 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 1st respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of directing the competent Appellate Authority to consider the appeal in a time bound manner.
Accordingly, there will be a direction to the 1st 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 AJM
WP(C) NO. 24804 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 →- Shivaraj M S vs. The Union Of INDIAKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026
