Loading High Court cases…
548 orders · Page 9 of 11
The High Court, considering the limited relief sought by the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the second respondent, the Appellate Authority, to consider the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until an order is passed on the stay petition, the recovery proceedings based on the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the appeal or the stay petition itself, but rather on the procedural aspect of their timely consideration and the interim relief regarding recovery.
The High Court of Kerala, while acknowledging the limited relief sought by the petitioner, disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the 1st respondent (Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax) to consider the petitioner's rectification application (Ext.P6) filed under Section 154. This consideration must be done after providing notice to the petitioner and passing orders expeditiously, at any rate, within two months from the date of receiving a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that recovery steps based on the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until orders are passed on Ext.P6. The judgment does not explicitly decide the entitlement to Section 11 benefits but focuses on the procedural direction to decide the rectification application.
The High Court of Kerala, considering the limited relief sought, disposed of the writ petition. It directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to consider and pass orders on the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that any demand arising from the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall not be enforced until orders are passed on the stay petition. The principle here is that appellate authorities should address stay applications expeditiously, and coercive recovery can be postponed pending such consideration.
The High Court directed the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider the appeals preferred by the petitioner and dispose of them within six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of the judgment. The Court clarified that it is open to the second respondent to consider the applications for condonation of delay filed in two of the appeals on their merits. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty orders or the validity of the delay condonation applications, but rather on the procedural step of considering the appeals. The ratio decidendi is that appellate authorities should consider appeals, including those with delay condonation applications, within a reasonable timeframe, provided the applications themselves are considered on their merits.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the merits of the claim for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Instead, considering the nature of the issues involved and the arguments advanced, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) filed along with the statutory appeal. The stay petition was to be considered and disposed of within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, all coercive action pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) was to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent for appropriate action. No issue was expressly left undecided, as the Court's focus was procedural.
The High Court, having considered the circumstances, decided that the writ petition could be disposed of by directing the second respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P7) within a time-bound manner. The Court directed the respondent to pass orders on Ext.P7 within four months of receiving a copy of the judgment. Crucially, the Court ordered that all recovery proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4 (penalty order) and Ext.P6 (presumably another demand notice) shall be kept in abeyance until the stay petition is disposed of as directed. The High Court did not decide the merits of the penalty or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.
The High Court of Kerala did not decide the substantive issue regarding the eligibility of the petitioner for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Instead, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) filed along with the statutory appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Pending the disposal of the stay petition, all coercive action pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) was ordered to be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was directed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the 2nd respondent for appropriate action. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, did not decide the substantive issue of the petitioner's eligibility for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). Instead, considering the nature of the issues and arguments, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to consider and dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) filed along with the statutory appeal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the judgment. Pending the disposal of the stay petition, all coercive action pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) was ordered to be kept in abeyance. The Court did not address any other issues or leave any specific points undecided, focusing solely on expediting the stay petition's disposal.
The High Court, having heard both sides, directed the 1st respondent (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax) to consider and dispose of Ext.P12 request made by the petitioner in accordance with law. The Court ordered that the petitioner be put on notice regarding Ext.P12, a hearing be conducted through video conferencing, and orders be passed within one week. The Court did not explicitly rule on whether the interest qualified as 'disputed interest' but rather focused on the procedural aspect of considering the petitioner's request. The operative direction was to consider the request and pass orders expeditiously.
The High Court, in its order dated 11.05.2021, noted that a memo had been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Based on this memo, the Court ordered that the appeal would stand dismissed as not pressed. This means the appellant chose not to pursue the appeal further. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or the ITAT's order. No specific findings were made on any issues, and no reasoning was provided beyond acknowledging the appellant's decision to withdraw the appeal. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal erred in not considering the actual income of the appellant as per Ext.A-17 for calculating compensation for permanent disability. The functional disability was assessed at 20% instead of the awarded 40% for calculation purposes.
The Court noted the submission that the issues were settled by an Amnesty Scheme. Consequently, the Court found no further matter for consideration.
The High Court held that the appeal would stand dismissed as not pressed. The reasoning was based on the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (assessee) that the appeal was not being pressed due to the assessee's intention to avail an applicable Amnesty Scheme. The Court explicitly stated that the dismissal was on the ground of the appeal not being pressed. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal can be dismissed as not pressed if the appellant so chooses, particularly when opting for an alternative resolution mechanism like an Amnesty Scheme. The Court granted liberty to the appellant to pursue the Amnesty Scheme as legally available. No specific issue was left undecided, as the appeal was disposed of on the assessee's request.
The High Court of Kerala held that the appeal would stand dismissed as being not pressed. This decision was based on the submission made by the assessee's counsel that the appeal was not being pressed due to the assessee's intention to avail an applicable Amnesty Scheme. The Court explicitly stated that the dismissal was on account of the appeal not being pressed. The reasoning is straightforward: if an appellant withdraws or does not press their appeal, the court will dismiss it on that ground. The ratio decidendi is that an appeal not pressed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. The operative direction is that the appeal stands dismissed as not pressed. The Court also granted liberty to the appellant to pursue the Amnesty Scheme as legally available. No issues were left undecided.
The High Court held that the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act necessitates giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard. The Court found that neither the impugned order (Ext.P4) nor the notice preceding it demonstrated that such an opportunity was granted to the petitioner. Consequently, there was an infraction of the statutory provision and a violation of the basic requirement of an opportunity of being heard, thus breaching the principles of natural justice. The Court was satisfied that the petitioner need not be relegated to statutory remedies due to this fundamental flaw. The Court set aside Ext.P4 and directed the Principal Commissioner to pass fresh orders after issuing proper notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. The ratio decidendi is that a Section 263 order passed without affording the assessee an opportunity of hearing is void ab initio for violating principles of natural justice.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that while judicial discipline mandates adherence to superior court judgments, the assessment order, even if erroneous or contrary to established law, does not automatically warrant intervention under Article 226 when a statutory appeal is available. The Court reiterated the principle of self-restraint, stating that constitutional courts generally do not permit the invocation of writ jurisdiction when adequate legal remedies exist. The petitioner's grievance stemmed from the appreciation and analysis of facts by the assessing officer, which requires factual appreciation and analysis, making the statutory appeal the appropriate remedy. The Court noted that the assessing officer had the requisite jurisdiction and there was no violation of natural justice. The dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner's right to pursue statutory remedies.
The High Court of Kerala, while considering the writ petition, acknowledged the pending statutory appeal and stay petition before the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi). The Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition filed along with the appeal (Ext.P3) within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The order emphasized that the stay petition should be passed after hearing the petitioner, and the petitioner was directed to cooperate. Crucially, the Court ordered that all coercive action for realizing the amount due under Ext.P1 shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition. The writ petition was allowed in terms of these directions.
The High Court decided that the appeal would stand dismissed as not pressed. This decision was based on the submission made by the appellant's counsel regarding the intention to avail an Amnesty Scheme. The Court explicitly stated that this dismissal would not prejudice the appellant's liberty to pursue the Amnesty Scheme as legally available. No other issues were decided, and no specific findings on the merits of the original dispute were made.
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition filed by the District Lottery Officer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court also ordered that all coercive steps pursuant to the penalty order shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The Court did not decide on the merits of the penalty or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the pending stay petition.
The High Court of Kerala granted permission to the appellant to withdraw the Income Tax Appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case.
The High Court directed the second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P6) as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Court ordered that no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner until a decision is taken on the stay petition. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions. The judgment did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.
The High Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to dispose of the appeal filed by the petitioner expeditiously and in a time-bound manner. Taking note of the exceptional circumstances, particularly the Supreme Court judgment cited by the assessee's counsel, the Court also ordered a stay of all coercive steps against the assessment order pending the disposal of the appeal. The Court did not decide the merits of the deduction under Section 80P but focused on procedural directions for the appellate authority and interim relief for the assessee. The operative direction is to dispose of the appeal expeditiously and to stay coercive steps.
The High Court granted the appellant's request to withdraw the Income Tax Appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the underlying dispute. The operative direction was the dismissal of the appeal without prejudice to any other proceedings that might be available to the parties. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute were not recorded in this order.
The High Court of Kerala granted the appellant's counsel permission to withdraw the Income Tax Appeal. Consequently, the Income Tax Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of the case. The operative direction was to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn.
The High Court directed the third respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to dispose of Ext.P2 appeal in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. Furthermore, the Court ordered a stay on all further coercive steps based on Ext.P1 Assessment Order until the disposal of Ext.P2 appeal. The reasoning was based on the precedent set by Ext.P4 judgment, which was issued in a similar situation involving a co-operative society and its statutory appeal against an assessment order. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner is a co-operative society and has filed an appeal against the assessment order, thus warranting the directions issued. The principle is that in cases where a statutory appeal is pending against an assessment order, and a similar issue has been considered by higher courts, it is appropriate to direct expeditious disposal of the appeal and stay coercive recovery proceedings pending the outcome.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass appropriate orders on the stay petition (Ext.P6) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until final orders are passed on the stay petition, the respondents shall not take any coercive action pursuant to Exts.P2 and P4. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, focusing solely on the procedural aspects of the stay petition and the interim relief.
The High Court directed the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, to consider the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) as expeditiously as possible, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that further proceedings based on the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be stayed until final orders were passed on the stay petition. The Court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of expediting the stay petition and providing interim relief. The principle established is that courts can direct appellate authorities to dispose of stay petitions expeditiously and grant interim relief pending such disposal.
The High Court decided to dispose of the writ petition with specific directions. The second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, was directed to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) as expeditiously as possible, within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, all recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) were stayed until the disposal of the stay petition. The court did not decide the merits of the appeal itself, but rather focused on ensuring the procedural steps for seeking interim relief were expedited and that recovery was held in abeyance during this period. The ratio is that courts can direct authorities to expedite pending applications for stay and grant interim relief by staying recovery proceedings pending the disposal of such applications.
The High Court directed the second respondent, the National Faceless Appeal Centre, to dispose of the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the Court ordered that all recovery steps pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be stayed until the disposal of the stay petition by the second respondent. The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, focusing solely on procedural directions and interim relief.
The High Court considered the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioners to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted the permission sought by the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute. The ratio decidendi is that a party has the right to withdraw their case, and the court will grant such permission if requested, leading to a dismissal of the petition without prejudice to any other remedies.
The High Court admitted the writ petition and directed the respondents to hear and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The Court further ordered that the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) would be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay application (Ext.P3). The Court did not decide on the merits of the assessment order or the appeal. The operative direction was to expedite the disposal of the stay petition and to provide interim relief by staying recovery.
The High Court of Kerala, in its writ jurisdiction, acknowledged the assessee's grievance that their appeal and stay petition were not being disposed of, while recovery proceedings were being initiated. The Court did not delve into the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself. Instead, it focused on the procedural delay. The Court directed the respondents to hear and dispose of the stay application (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Furthermore, the recovery proceedings initiated under the assessment order (Ext.P1) were ordered to be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay application (Ext.P3). The Court explicitly stated that the writ petition was disposed of with these directions, implying no decision on the substantive issues of the appeal.
The High Court directed the 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to consider and pass orders on the statutory appeals filed by the petitioner (Ext.P2 and P2(a)) expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court ordered that until the appeals are disposed of, the respondents are directed to keep the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment orders (Ext.P1) in abeyance. The Court did not decide on the merits of the deduction claim itself but focused on procedural relief pending the appeal. The core issue of eligibility for Section 80(p) deduction, while discussed in the context of the petitioner's reliance on precedents, was not adjudicated upon by the High Court in this writ petition.
The High Court, in light of the judgments referred to by the petitioner, directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and pass orders on the petitioner's appeal (Ext.P2) expeditiously. Furthermore, the Court directed the respondents to keep the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) in abeyance until the appeal is disposed of. The Court did not decide the substantive issue of eligibility for deduction under Section 80(p) but focused on procedural relief pending the appellate decision. The ratio of this judgment lies in granting a stay on recovery proceedings and directing expeditious disposal of appeals when a substantial question of law, as decided by the Supreme Court, is involved.
The High Court disposed of both writ petitions with specific directions. The Court directed the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), to decide the stay petitions (Ext.P6) filed in the pending appeals (Ext.P3) within a period of two months from the date of communication of the judgment. The Court also directed that the recovery proceedings pursuant to the penalty orders (Ext.P2) shall be kept in abeyance by the respondents until the disposal of the stay petitions. The Standing Counsel for the respondents was tasked with communicating the judgment to the 2nd respondent for compliance, and the petitioners were directed to cooperate with the 2nd respondent in the disposal of the stay petitions within the prescribed timeframe. No issue was expressly left undecided; the court provided a procedural resolution.
The High Court noted the submission from the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the writ petition and had filed a memo for withdrawal. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn. No decision was made on the merits of any underlying tax dispute. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition as withdrawn.
The High Court took note of the withdrawal memo filed by the assessee's counsel. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as not pressed.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with directions. The Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the stay petition (Ext.P6) filed by the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of the judgment, following due process. The petitioner was directed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the stay petition is decided, proceedings for recovery initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P3) shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was also instructed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the concerned respondent for compliance. No specific finding was made on the merits of the appeal itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of the stay petition.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition by directing the 3rd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to decide the pending stay petition (Exhibit P3) within a period of three months from the date of the order, following due process of law. Until the disposal of the stay petition by the 3rd respondent, the respondents were directed to defer the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Exhibit P1). The court did not decide on the merits of the claim for deduction under Section 80P, as the matter was pending before the appellate authority.
The High Court directed the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre) to decide the pending appeal and stay petition expeditiously. Until the disposal of the appeal, the respondents are restrained from recovering the amount determined against the petitioner in the assessment order (Ext.P1). The Court relied on the ratio of the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Calicut, which held that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally and reasonably, and that Section 80P(4) specifically excludes co-operative banks engaged in banking business with an RBI license. The Court noted that it has consistently followed this ratio in similar petitions, directing the disposal of appeals without insisting on pre-deposit or recovery. The petitioner was also directed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the appeal. No issue was expressly left undecided.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The second respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was directed to decide the stay petition (Ext.P7) filed by the petitioner in the statutory appeal (Ext.P5) within two months from the date of communication of the judgment, following due process. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the second respondent for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the Court ordered that until the stay petition is decided, the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P4) shall be kept in abeyance. The petitioner was also instructed to furnish a copy of the judgment to the concerned respondent for compliance.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the 2nd respondent (National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi) to consider and decide the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)) filed by the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of the judgment, following due process. The petitioner was directed to cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the Court ordered that proceedings for recovery initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance until the disposal of the stay petition (Ext.P3(a)). The revenue's Standing Counsel was instructed to inform the respondents about the judgment for compliance. No specific finding was made on the merits of the Section 80P claim or the assessment order itself, as the focus was on the procedural aspect of stay and recovery.
The High Court noted that the claim for deduction under Section 80P was rejected in the assessment order. It referred to the Supreme Court's observations in Mavilayi Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, which emphasized that Section 80P is a benevolent provision to be read liberally and reasonably, and that Section 80P(4) specifically excludes cooperative banks engaged in banking business with an RBI license. The Court also noted its own previous judgments where it directed appellate authorities to decide appeals without insisting on pre-deposit or payment of tax pending assessment orders, relying on the Supreme Court's stance. Consequently, the Court directed the 2nd respondent (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the pending appeal expeditiously. Until the disposal of the appeal, recovery pursuant to the assessment order was deferred.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. The 3rd respondent, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), was directed to decide the stay petition (Ext.P3) filed in connection with the appeal (Ext.P2) within two months from the date of communication of the judgment. The petitioner was directed to cooperate with the 3rd respondent for the expeditious disposal of the stay petition. Crucially, the Court directed that until the stay petition is disposed of by the 3rd respondent, the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be kept in abeyance. The Court did not decide the merits of the assessment order or the appeal itself, but rather focused on the procedural aspect of staying recovery pending the appeal's adjudication.
The High Court of Kerala disposed of the writ petition with specific directions. It directed the respondents (revenue authorities) to decide the stay petitions (Exts.P2(a) and P4(a)) within a period of three months from the date of communication of the judgment by the petitioner. Crucially, the court ordered that until the disposal of these stay petitions, the recovery proceedings initiated pursuant to the assessment order (Ext.P1) shall be deferred. The court did not decide on the merits of the appeals themselves but focused on ensuring that the petitioner's right to have their stay applications heard and decided was protected, and that recovery was held back in the interim. The ratio decidendi is that pending the disposal of stay petitions before appellate authorities, recovery proceedings should be deferred to avoid prejudice to the assessee.
The High Court disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent No. 1 (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) to decide the pending appeal on its merits in accordance with law. The Court specifically directed that the appeal should be decided without insisting on the payment of 20% of the tax demanded as per communication Ext.P3. The Court also ordered that recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment order shall be kept in abeyance until a decision is taken on the appeal. The reasoning implicitly accepts the assessee's contention regarding the unjustified demand for pre-payment of tax, prioritizing the adjudication of the appeal on merits. The issue regarding the availability of Section 80P benefit was not decided by the High Court as it was part of the pending appeal.
The High Court of Kerala held that the demand for 20% of the assessed tax amount during the pendency of a statutory appeal, where the appeal concerns the denial of the benefit of Section 80P of the Income Tax Act, is not justified. The Court relied on its previous judgments in a series of cases, including 'The Angadipuram Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)', which had already decided this issue. The ratio decidendi is that the recovery and collection of taxes under an assessment order should be kept in abeyance until the statutory appeal is decided, particularly when the appeal pertains to a deduction claim like Section 80P. The Court allowed the writ petitions, directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to consider and dispose of the statutory appeals at the earliest, taking note of the Full Bench decisions on the matter. Until then, the recovery of taxes under the assessment order was directed to be kept in abeyance.
The High Court allowed the writ petitions. The Court noted that the primary issue pending before the appellate authority was the entitlement of the petitioner co-operative societies to deduction under Section 80(P) of the Income Tax Act, which had been denied by the Assessing Officer. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and subsequent judgments of the Kerala High Court, including a Division Bench judgment in W.A.No. 1536/2019 and a Single Judge's decision in W.P.(C) No. 5234/2020. The ratio of these judgments indicated that recovery and collection of taxes should be kept in abeyance until the statutory appeals are decided. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the pending appeals expeditiously. Until such disposal, the recovery proceedings pursuant to the assessment orders were ordered to be kept in abeyance.
The High Court held that an unregistered joint development agreement cannot be considered a contract under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act after the 2001 amendments. Therefore, it does not constitute a transfer of a capital asset for capital gains tax purposes.
The High Court, following a Full Bench judgment, held that the failure to remit deducted tax, as per Section 194C, does not fall under Section 271C(1)(b) to attract penalty. Therefore, the penalty imposed was not warranted.