<?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>1989 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5270</link>
    <description>Interest earned merely on a cash security furnished under an agency agreement was not treated as income derived from an investment with another co-operative society, so the exemption failed and the receipt was taxable. By contrast, advances made to district co-operative federations to finance the sugar business were treated as an investment for the purposes of the co-operative exemption, because the funds were placed with other co-operative societies in furtherance of the business arrangement and the provision was construed liberally to encourage the co-operative movement. Accordingly, the first receipt was taxable and the second was exempt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2025 17:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (2) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5270</link>
      <description>Interest earned merely on a cash security furnished under an agency agreement was not treated as income derived from an investment with another co-operative society, so the exemption failed and the receipt was taxable. By contrast, advances made to district co-operative federations to finance the sugar business were treated as an investment for the purposes of the co-operative exemption, because the funds were placed with other co-operative societies in furtherance of the business arrangement and the provision was construed liberally to encourage the co-operative movement. Accordingly, the first receipt was taxable and the second was exempt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>