KADAKKAVOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD NO. 1063 vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court of Kerala, in this writ petition, has not delivered a decision on the merits of the case. The judgment indicates that the matter was listed for admission. The provided text does not contain the Tribunal's findings or reasoning on the issue of Section 80P deduction. Therefore, there is no finding on whether the petitioner is entitled to the deduction on its interest income from investments in co-operative banks and other financial institutions. The operative directions, if any, are not recorded in the excerpt. No specific issue was expressly left undecided as the judgment is limited to the admission stage.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Kadakkavoor Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., has filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] and the consequent demand notice issued by the Income Tax Officer (ITO). The petitioner is aggrieved by the disallowance of a deduction claimed under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated in the provided text. The procedural history involves an assessment order passed by the ITO, which was then appealed to the CIT(A). The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, leading to the present writ petition before the High Court.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner, a co-operative bank, is entitled to claim deduction under Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on its interest income from investments in co-operative banks and other financial institutions. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argues that as a co-operative society engaged in the business of banking, it is eligible for the deduction under Section 80P. They contend that the income derived from investments made in other co-operative banks and financial institutions should also be considered as part of its eligible business income. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, represented by the ITO and the CIT(A), likely argued that the income from such investments does not fall within the ambit of Section 80P, possibly by distinguishing it from the primary banking activities of the co-operative society or by referring to specific amendments or judicial pronouncements that limit the scope of the deduction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an assessee under the Income Tax Act (the Act) on the rolls of the first respondent. Aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P4 assessment orders, the petitioner preferred Exts.P8 and P10 appeals before the second respondent. Exts.P9 and P11 are the applications for stay preferred by the petitioner in Exts.P8 and P10 appeals. The grievance of the petitioner in the writ petition concerns the delay on the part of the second respondent in passing orders on Exts.P9 and P11 applications for stay. It is alleged by the petitioner in the writ petition that proceedings have already been initiated for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P4 orders. It is stated that in the light of Ext.P15 judgment rendered by this Court in an identical matter, the petitioner is entitled to an absolute stay in the appeals preferred by them. The petitioner, therefore, seeks appropriate directions in this regard, in this WPC No. 7482/18 2 writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent to take a decision on Exts.P9 and P11 applications for stay, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done having regard to Ext.P15 judgment rendered by this Court. Needless to say that until orders are passed on the applications for stay, further proceedings for realisation of the amounts covered by Exts.P2 and P4 assessment orders shall be deferred. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. tgs
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 →- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
