M/S. KOPPAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO.F.1205 vs. ADDITIONAL/JOINT/DEPUTY/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court did not decide the merits of the case. Instead, it directed the Appellate Authority (2nd respondent) to consider the appeal filed by the petitioner (Ext.P2) expeditiously, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court clarified that the Appellate Authority should not insist on the deposit of 20% of the amount in dispute, given the nature of the petitioner's plea. Furthermore, no coercive steps are to be initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) until the appeal is decided. The High Court's decision is procedural, aiming to expedite the appellate process and provide interim relief.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, M/s. Koppam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, received an assessment order on February 13, 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 of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society under the Co-operative Societies Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), arguing 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, despite the assessment order being issued after this judgment. The High Court considered the pending appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the assessing officer erred in rejecting the deduction under Section 80P without considering the ingredients of a Primary Agricultural Credit Society as contemplated under the Co-operative Societies Act, particularly in light of the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others. Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was flawed as it was passed subsequent to the Supreme Court's judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut and Others, and this crucial judgment was not considered by the assessing officer. The petitioner sought to rely on this judgment to support its claim for deduction under Section 80P. Revenue's contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue in response to the writ petition. The revenue was represented by counsel for the Income Tax Department.
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 13.02.2021. 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 respondent, I deem it fit that this writ petition be disposed of WP(C) NO. 13289 OF 2021 3 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. 13289 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
