<?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>2005 (8) TMI 322 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71260</link>
    <description>Income from a co-operative bank&#039;s trading in Government securities was treated as attributable to the business of banking because dealing in securities and investment in approved securities form part of banking activity under the Banking Regulation Act, and the transactions were made in the ordinary course of banking operations; deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) was therefore available. Interest income from investments of non-statutory reserves in mutual funds was also treated as attributable to banking business, following the view that income from deployment of surplus or idle banking funds remains eligible for the same deduction. Both categories of banking-related income were held deductible, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=109589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (8) TMI 322 - ITAT RAJKOT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71260</link>
      <description>Income from a co-operative bank&#039;s trading in Government securities was treated as attributable to the business of banking because dealing in securities and investment in approved securities form part of banking activity under the Banking Regulation Act, and the transactions were made in the ordinary course of banking operations; deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) was therefore available. Interest income from investments of non-statutory reserves in mutual funds was also treated as attributable to banking business, following the view that income from deployment of surplus or idle banking funds remains eligible for the same deduction. Both categories of banking-related income were held deductible, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71260</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>