THE KODUR SERVICE CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD., F 1523, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS),
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court, considering the facts and circumstances and the submissions, and noting that similar matters have been directed by this Court to be considered by the Appellate Authority with a stay on recovery, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the 1st respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P4 to P6) within six months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Recovery steps for the amounts confirmed by the assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P3) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until orders are passed by the 1st respondent and communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, the order Ext.P7, which directed the petitioner to remit 20% of the confirmed amounts, was quashed. The petitioner was directed to produce copies of the writ petition and the judgment before the 1st respondent for further action. The Court did not decide the merits of the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kodur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., filed appeals (Exts.P4 to P6) before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [1st respondent] against assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P3) passed under the Income Tax Act. The petitioner also sought a stay on recovery of disputed amounts pending appeal disposal under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act. The application for stay was disposed of by Ext.P7, directing the petitioner to remit 20% of the confirmed amounts. The core issue in the appeals concerns the disallowance of deductions claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order directing partial payment pending appeal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the recovery of disputed amounts should be stayed pending the disposal of appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that recovery should be stayed pending the disposal of their appeals, as the issue pertains to the disallowance of deductions under Section 80P. The petitioner sought an order to stay recovery pending the appeal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the stay of recovery or the merits of the appeal. The revenue was represented by a Standing Counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T Against Exts.P1 and P3 assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P4 to P6 appeals before the 1st respondent. In the meanwhile, the petitioner also sought for an order under Section 220(6) of the Income Tax Act for staying the recovery pending disposal of the appeals. The said application was disposed by Ext.P7 order that directed the petitioner to remit 20% of the amounts confirmed against him pending disposal of the appeals. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved in the appeal pertains to dis-allowance of deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act.
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
W.P.(C).No.35450/2019 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 by directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P4 to P6 appeals within an outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Recovery steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Exts.P1 and P3 assessment orders shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 1st respondent as directed above and communicated to the petitioner. In view of the directions issued above, Ext.P7 order stands quashed. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition together with a copy of this judgment, before the 1st respondent, for further action. A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE prp/20/12/19
W.P.(C).No.35450/2019
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 Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Govindjee Dairy Milk Private Limited vs. Central Goods And Services TaxRajasthan · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Asian Aura vs. Government Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
