THE VALANCHERY SERVICE CO-OP BANK LTD,MALAPPURAM vs. THE ITO, TIRUR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Kerala High Court, in a similar case, held that primary agricultural credit societies registered under the State Act should be considered as such, and the Tribunal was not justified in denying the benefit of exemption under Section 80P.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a cooperative bank registered as a primary agricultural credit society, was denied deduction under Section 80P(2) due to Section 80P(4). The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) confirmed this denial, and the Tribunal initially dismissed the assessee's appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether a primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is entitled to deduction under Section 80P despite Section 80P(4), and whether the Tribunal correctly denied this exemption.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT631 citing384 ITR 490 · 2016 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
PER GEROGE GEORGE K, JM:
This appeal is restored to the Tribunal by the judgment of the Hon’ble
Kerala High Court dated 10th March 2016 in ITA no. 2 of 2016.
2 Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The assessee is a cooperative bank registered as a primary agricultural
credit society under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The claim of
deduction u/s 80P(2) was denied by the Assessing Officer for the reason that the
assessee is primarily engaged in the business of banking and in view of section
80P(4) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act.
ITA No. 519/C/2014
3 Aggrieved by the assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal to the
first appellate authority. The CIT(A) confirmed the assessment order.
4 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee preferred appeal to
the Tribunal. The Tribunal, vide order dated 6th Oct 2015, dismissed the appeal
of the assessee by holding that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit of
deduction u/s 80P of the Act.
5 Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the assessee preferred further
appeal before the Hon’ble Kerala High Court, u/s 260A of the Act. The Hon’ble
High Court vide judgment dated 10th March.2016 in ITA No. 2 of 2016, restored
the issues to the Tribunal. It is in this context, the case was heard on 22nd
March 2017.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
The Hon’ble High Court in the case of Chirakkal Service Co-op Bank Ltd vs CIT
reported in 384 ITR 490 had held that the Tribunal was not justified in denying the
benefit of exemption u/s 80P of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court was considering
the following substantial question of law:
a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case under consideration, the Tribunal is correct in law in deciding against the assessee, the issue regarding entitlement for exemption under section 80P, ignoring the fact that the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society?
ITA No. 519/C/2014
6.1 In considering the above substantial question of law, the Hon’ble High
Court rendered the following findings:
“15. Appellants in these different appeals are indisputably societies registered under the Kerala co-operative societies Act, 1969, for sort, KCS Act and the bye-laws of each of them, as made available to this court as part of the paper books, clearly show that they have been classified as primary agricultural credit societies by the competent authority under the provisions of that Act. The parliament, having defined the term 'co-operative society' for the purposes of the BR Act with reference to, among other things, the registration of a society under any State law relating to co-operative societies for the time being; it cannot but be taken that the purpose of the societies so registered under the State Law and its objects have to be understood as those which have been approved by the competent authority under such State law. This, we visualise as due reciprocative legislative exercise by the Parliament recognising the predominance of decisions rendered under the relevant State Law. In this view of the matter, all the appellants having been classified as primary agricultural credit societies by the competent authority under the KCS Act, it has necessarily to be held that the principal object of such societies is to undertake agricultural credit activities and to provide loans and advances for agricultural purposes, the rate 'of interest on such loans and advances to be at the rate fixed by the Registrar of co-operative societies under the KCS Act and having its area of operation confined to a village, panchayat or a municipality. This is the consequence of the definition clause in section 2(oaa) of the KCS Act. The authorities under the IT Act cannot probe into any issue or such matter relating to such applicants.
The position of 1aw being as above with reference to the statutory provisions, the appellants had shown to the authorities and the Tribunal that they are primary agricultural credit societies in terms of clause (cciv) of section 5 of the BR Act, having regard to the primary object or principal business of each of the appellants. It is also clear from the materials on record that the bye-laws of each of the appellants do . not permit admission of any other co-operative society as member, except may be, in accordance with the proviso to sub-clause 2 of section 5(cciv) of the BR Act. The different orders of the Tribunal which are impeached in these appeals do not contain any finding of fact to the effect that the bye- 1aws of any of the 3
ITA No. 519/C/2014
appellant or its classification by the competent authority under the KCS Act lS anything different from what we have stated herein above. For this reason, it cannot but be held that the appellants are entitled to exemption from the provisions of section 80P of the IT Act by virtue of sub- section 4 of that sect; on. In this view of the matter, the appeals succeed.
In the light of the aforesaid, we answer substantia1 question 'A' in favour of the appellants and hold that the Tribunal erred in law in deciding the issue regarding the entitlement of exemption under section 80P against the appellants. We hold that the primary agricultural credit societies, registered as such under the KCS Act; and classified so, under that Act, including the appellants are entitled to such exemption.”
6.2 In the instant case, the assessee is a primary agricultural credit society
registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969. The certificate
has been issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to the above said
effect and the same is on record. The Hon’ble High Court, in assessee’s own
case and other batch of cases, had held that primary agricultural credit
society, registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, is entitled
to the benefit of deduction u/s 80P(2). Since there is a certificate issued by the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies, stating that the assessee is a primary
agricultural credit society, we hold that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of
deduction u/s 80P(2) of the Act.
7 No other issues were argued by the ld counsel for the assessee during the
course of hearing of this appeal.
ITA No. 519/C/2014
8 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on this 22nd day of March 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) (GEORGE GEORGE K) Accountant Member Judicial Member Cochin: Dated 22nd March 2017 Raj* Copy to: 1. Appellant – 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT, 5. DR 6. Guard File By order
Assistant Registrar ITAT, COCHIN
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Edavilangu Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd No… vs ITO, Ward-2(1), ThrissurCochin21 Feb 2025Remanded
Also relies on Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee is a cooperative society, not a cooperative bank, and therefore Section 80P(4) is not applicable. However, interest income earned from non-members is not eligible for deduction under S...
- The Vattanathra Service Co-Op Society Ltd… vs The ITO Ward 2(1), ThrissurCochin7 Nov 2024Remanded
Also relies on Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that even a belated return, prior to the amendment of Section 80AC w.e.f. 01.04.2018, is eligible for Section 80P deduction. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s findings were not upheld.
- The Vijayawada Electricity Employees Co… vs Income Tax Office Ward 2(1), VijayawadaVisakhapatnam22 Dec 2023Remanded
Also relies on Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal found that the lower authorities did not adequately consider the information provided by the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification of the cash depo...
- The ITO, Ward-2(3), Trivandrum vs M/S.Mundela Serviceco-Op Bank Ltd…Cochin31 Aug 2023Remanded
Also relies on Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that income assessed as business income would qualify for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) to the extent it relates to eligible activities. Income from deposits with cooperative societies and cooper...
- Jaihind Nagari Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward- Malegaon, NashikPune4 Jul 2023Remanded
Also relies on Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. CIT
The Tribunal held that a claim for deduction under Section 80P, even if made in a belatedly filed return or during assessment proceedings, should be considered on merits. The timing of the claim is directory, not mandato...
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
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- 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