<?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>2016 (5) TMI 762 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327781</link>
    <description>A co-operative credit society dealing only with its members was not treated as a co-operative bank for section 80P(4), because its activity was limited to accepting deposits from members and advancing credit to them. Deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) therefore remained available. Interest earned on bank deposits used as liquidity for operational needs was also held to be attributable to the society&#039;s credit activity, not income from other sources under section 56. The Totgars principle was distinguished on the facts because the deposits were not surplus funds outside the business activity. The assessee&#039;s claim for deduction was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Aug 2024 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428756" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 762 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327781</link>
      <description>A co-operative credit society dealing only with its members was not treated as a co-operative bank for section 80P(4), because its activity was limited to accepting deposits from members and advancing credit to them. Deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) therefore remained available. Interest earned on bank deposits used as liquidity for operational needs was also held to be attributable to the society&#039;s credit activity, not income from other sources under section 56. The Totgars principle was distinguished on the facts because the deposits were not surplus funds outside the business activity. The assessee&#039;s claim for deduction was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327781</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>