ALOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED, vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, following its own previous orders in connected matters, quashed the order of the Appellate Authority (Ext.P8) that imposed a condition of paying 20% of the disputed demand for a stay. The Court directed the second respondent, the Appellate Authority, to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeals (Exts.P3 and P7) within three months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps pursuant to the demand notices (Exts.P2 and P6) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the Appellate Authority passed its orders and communicated them to the petitioner. The Court did not decide the merits of the deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, leaving that to be decided by the Appellate Authority. The ratio is that in cases involving disputes over Section 80P deductions, and where similar matters have been decided by the High Court, the Appellate Authority should be directed to decide the appeals expeditiously, and recovery should be stayed pending that decision.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Aloor Service Co-operative Bank Limited, is challenging assessment orders (Exts.P1 and P5) and subsequent demand notices (Exts.P2 and P6) issued by the Income Tax Officer. The petitioner had filed appeals (Exts.P3 and P7) along with stay applications before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the second respondent. The Appellate Authority, by an order (Ext.P8), directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand as a condition for granting a stay on the recovery of the balance amounts pending the disposal of the appeals. This writ petition has been filed against the said order.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority to pay 20% of the disputed demand for a stay of recovery pending appeal is legally sustainable, considering the nature of the dispute concerning the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner, represented by its counsel, implicitly argues that the condition imposed by the Appellate Authority is onerous and seeks a stay of recovery pending the disposal of appeals on merits. The petitioner relies on the fact that this Court has, in connected matters, directed the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on appeals and granted a stay of recovery of disputed demands pending disposal. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue's Standing Counsel. However, the revenue is represented by the Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and their actions are under challenge.
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 P5 assessment orders under the Income Tax Act, the petitioner has preferred Exts.P3 and P7 appeals along with stay applications before the 2nd respondent. In the stay applications, by Ext.P8 order, the Appellate Authority directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the disputed demand as a condition for stay of recovery of balance amounts pending disposal of the appeals. Exts.P2 and P6 are the demand notices issued to the petitioner in this regard.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the bar, I find that the issue involved in the appeals is the permissibility of deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act. In connected matters, this Court has directed the Appellate Authority to consider and W.P.(C).No.29791/2019 : 3 : pass orders on the appeals and granted a stay of recovery of the disputed demands pending disposal of the appeals by the Appellate Authority. Following the said orders, I quash Ext.P8 order, and direct the 2nd respondent Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on Exts.P3 and P7 appeals within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after hearing the petitioner. Recovery steps, pursuant to Exts.P2 and P6 demand notices, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders are passed by the 2nd respondent, as directed, and the order 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 prp/6/11/19
W.P.(C).No.29791/2019 : 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 Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Sandeep Ranjan Rout vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026