Wp(C)/8966/2020 Of Pullukulangara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)
High Court
30 Jul 2020 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · highcourtofkerala
Parties
Wp(C)/8966/2020 Of Pullukulangara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)
Date of order
30 Jul 2020
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Other
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Wp(C)/8966/2020 Of Pullukulangara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd v. The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), the High Court (2020) decided the matter.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
Sections referenced in this judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2020 / 8TH SRAVANA, 1942
WP(C).No.8966 OF 2020(U)
PETITIONER:
PULLUKULANGARA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTDNO.2992,KAYAMKULAM P.O., ALAPPUZHA-690 502, REPRESENTED BY ITSSECRETARY,M.Y SAMEENA
BY ADV. SRI.V.DEVANANDA NARASIMHAM
RESPONDENTS:
1THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)PUBLIC LIBRARY BUILDING, SHASTRI ROAD, KOTTAYAM-686 0012THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD -3,A.N.PURM, ALAPPUZHA-688 011
BY GOVT.PLEADER DR.THUSHARA JAMES, BY ADV.SRI.JOSE JOSEPH,SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30.07.2020,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Against Ext.P2 assessment order under the Income Tax Act(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the petitioner has preferred Ext.P3appeal before the 1[st] respondent. Ext.P4 is the demand notice. It ispointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that the issue involved inthe appeal is the permissibility of a deduction under Section 80P of theAct as applicable to Co-operative Societies.
2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitionerand also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Income TaxDepartment.
On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case asalso the submissions made across the Bar, and taking note of thedecisions of this Court whereby this Court has, in identical matters,directed the appellate authority to consider and pass orders in theappeal, and stayed the recovery proceedings pending disposal of theappeal by the appellate authority, I dispose this Writ Petition by directingthe 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3 appeal withinan outer time limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of thisjudgment, after hearing the petitioner. It is made clear that recovery
steps for recovery of amounts confirmed against the petitioner by Ext.P2assessment order, including further proceedings pursuant to Ext.P4demand notice, shall be kept in abeyance till such time as orders arepassed by the 1[st] respondent as directed, and the order communicatedto the petitioner,. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petitiontogether with a copy of this judgment, before the 1[st] respondent, forfurther action.
Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE
mns
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.