<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (4) TMI 146 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70867</link>
    <description>Section 80P relief was confined to the statutory categories actually specified, and a federal co-operative society was not eligible under section 80P(2)(b) because it was not itself a primary society supplying milk raised by its members to a federal milk co-operative society. Milk was also held not to be agricultural produce for section 80P(2)(a)(iii), so the wider claim for exemption on marketing members&#039; agricultural produce failed as well. The ordinary meaning of agricultural produce could not be expanded by reference to the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The result was that exemption under either provision was unavailable and the disallowance was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 Apr 2011 17:31:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109204" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (4) TMI 146 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70867</link>
      <description>Section 80P relief was confined to the statutory categories actually specified, and a federal co-operative society was not eligible under section 80P(2)(b) because it was not itself a primary society supplying milk raised by its members to a federal milk co-operative society. Milk was also held not to be agricultural produce for section 80P(2)(a)(iii), so the wider claim for exemption on marketing members&#039; agricultural produce failed as well. The ordinary meaning of agricultural produce could not be expanded by reference to the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The result was that exemption under either provision was unavailable and the disallowance was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>