THE VALLUVALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.E-139 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3

PDF · subscribers
WP(C)/15495/2020HC KeralaKLHC01039144202029 July 2020Author: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeals (Ext.P2 series) within an outer time limit of six months. The Court noted that in similar matters, it has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders and has stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending the appeal's disposal. Therefore, recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) will be kept in abeyance until the 2nd respondent passes orders and communicates them to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to furnish a copy of the writ petition and the judgment to the 2nd respondent. The specific finding on the permissibility of Section 80P deduction was not decided on merits by the High Court, as the matter was remanded for adjudication by the appellate authority.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, The Valluvally Service Co-operative Bank Limited, has filed a writ petition challenging assessment orders (Ext.P1 series) issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 3. The petitioner has preferred appeals (Ext.P2 series) against these orders before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The core issue in these appeals pertains to the permissibility of deductions under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, specifically as it applies to Co-operative Societies. The High Court heard arguments from both the petitioner and the revenue.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act is permissible in its application to Co-operative Societies? (Question of law) Assessee's Contention: The petitioner (assessee) argues that the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act is applicable to co-operative societies. The judgment does not explicitly record the assessee's specific arguments or any authorities/precedents relied upon, beyond stating the issue. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's arguments are not explicitly recorded in the judgment. The Standing Counsel for the respondents appeared before the court.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 80P

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 7TH SRAVANA, 1942 WP(C).No.15495 OF 2020 PETITIONER/S: THE VALLUVALLY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO.E-139 NORHT PARAVUR, KOONAMMAVU P.O ERNAKULAM. PIN 683 518 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SMT. LILA MJ BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAN NAIR SMT.G.REMADEVI SMT.HARIMA HARIHARAN SHRI.RAJATH R NATH RESPONDENT/S: 1 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 K.A.P COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, RAILWAY STATION ROAD ALUVA PIN 683 101 2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) G-51, PARAPPILLY LN, MANORAMA JUNCTION, GIRI NAGAR. PANAMPILLY NAGAR, KOCHI, KERALA 682036 OTHER PRESENT: SC: CHRISTOPHER ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.07.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No.15495 OF 2020 2

JUDGMENT Against Ext.P1 series of assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 series of appeals before the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal is the permissibility of the deduction under Section 80 P of the Income Tax Act in its application to the Co-operative Societies.

2.

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar and taking note of the fact that in similar matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders in the appeal and stayed the recovery of disputed amounts pending disposal of the appeal, this Writ petition is disposed directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 series of appeals within an outer time limit of six months. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 series of assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 2nd respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ

WP(C).No.15495 OF 2020 3

Appendix — schedule of exhibits
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDR DATED 22.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-2013 EXHIBIT P1(a) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 10.02.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 EXHIBIT P1(b) COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 22.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 20.1.2017 AGAINST EXT.P1 EXHIBIT P2(a) COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 12.02.2016 AGAINST EXT.P1(a) EXHIBIT P2(b) COPY OF APPEAL MEMORANDUM DATED 20.1.2017 AGAINST EXT.P1(b)

More judgments on Section 80P

All 5,069 judgments and leading authorities on Section 80P →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →