<?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 (12) TMI 115 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335470</link>
    <description>A co-operative credit society that provided credit only to its members was held not to fall within the expression &quot;co-operative bank&quot; for section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 80P continues to allow deduction to eligible co-operative societies, while the exclusion in section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative banks, as understood by reference to banking business under section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Because the society accepted deposits and advanced credit only to members, and not to the public at large, it was not carrying on banking business and remained entitled to the deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 Dec 2016 21:47:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450361" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 115 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335470</link>
      <description>A co-operative credit society that provided credit only to its members was held not to fall within the expression &quot;co-operative bank&quot; for section 80P(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 80P continues to allow deduction to eligible co-operative societies, while the exclusion in section 80P(4) applies only to co-operative banks, as understood by reference to banking business under section 5(b) of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Because the society accepted deposits and advanced credit only to members, and not to the public at large, it was not carrying on banking business and remained entitled to the deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335470</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>