<?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>2007 (5) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187841</link>
    <description>Interest earned from temporary bank deposits of surplus funds derived from member receipts remained covered by the doctrine of mutuality because the underlying receipts arose from member-linked facilities and there was no dealing with outsiders. The court treated the deposit income as retaining the character of the common mutual fund, so it did not acquire taxable profit character. The assessee was therefore entitled to exemption, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:11:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=447149" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (5) TMI 640 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187841</link>
      <description>Interest earned from temporary bank deposits of surplus funds derived from member receipts remained covered by the doctrine of mutuality because the underlying receipts arose from member-linked facilities and there was no dealing with outsiders. The court treated the deposit income as retaining the character of the common mutual fund, so it did not acquire taxable profit character. The assessee was therefore entitled to exemption, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187841</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>