PERUR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO F 1614 vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it disposed of the writ petition by directing the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The Court clarified that the Appellate Authority should not insist on the deposit of 20% of the amount in dispute, considering the nature of the petitioner's plea. Furthermore, no coercive steps are to be initiated against the petitioner pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is decided. The specific issue of whether the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society and the consequential deduction under Section 80P was left to be decided by the Appellate Authority.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Perur Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is a Primary Agricultural Credit Society. The Assessing Officer passed an assessment order on February 24, 2021, rejecting the petitioner's claim for deduction under Section 80P. The reason for rejection was the alleged lack of evidence that the petitioner satisfied the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as defined under the 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 [2021 (1) KLT 485] was not considered by the assessing officer, despite the assessment order being 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. Assessee's Contentions: - 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 [2021 (1) KLT 485] when passing the assessment order, even though the order was issued subsequent to this judgment. Revenue's Contentions: - No specific contentions for the revenue are recorded in the judgment regarding the merits of the assessment order or the appeal.
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 24.02.2021. 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 2nd respondent Appellate Authority, 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 the assessment order was rendered subsequent to the Supreme Court judgment.
Since the petitioner has already preferred an appeal as Ext.P2 and the same is pending consideration before the 2nd
WP(C) NO. 12987 OF 2021 3 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 a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P2, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is clarified that the Appellate Authority shall not insist on deposit of 20% of the amount in dispute considering the nature of the case that has been pleaded by the petitioner. Till such time, no coercive steps shall be initiated pursuant to Ext.P1 assessment order. The writ petition is disposed of as above. BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM
WP(C) NO. 12987 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 →- 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
