<?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>2014 (5) TMI 556 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247629</link>
    <description>A primary agricultural co-operative credit society claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) despite extending credit to nominal or B class members. The text states that, under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, nominal or associate members were statutorily recognised as members, so the section 80P condition was satisfied. It further notes that the deduction provision must be construed liberally and that restricting &quot;members&quot; to voting members would create an impermissible classification within a classification. On that reasoning, the distinction between A and B class members was treated as irrelevant, and the denial of deduction was described as unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 17 May 2014 09:12:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=355843" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (5) TMI 556 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247629</link>
      <description>A primary agricultural co-operative credit society claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) despite extending credit to nominal or B class members. The text states that, under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, nominal or associate members were statutorily recognised as members, so the section 80P condition was satisfied. It further notes that the deduction provision must be construed liberally and that restricting &quot;members&quot; to voting members would create an impermissible classification within a classification. On that reasoning, the distinction between A and B class members was treated as irrelevant, and the denial of deduction was described as unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=247629</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>