<?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>1969 (5) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7631</link>
    <description>An income-tax exemption issue turned on whether a co-operative society serving consumers within municipal limits qualified as an &quot;urban consumers&#039; society&quot; under the Income-tax Acts. The Court held that the statutory explanation gave the term an exhaustive meaning, so the society fell within that category regardless of definitions in other co-operative laws or the absence of profit distribution. It further held that exemption was not preserved merely because the society also carried on banking or other business, since exclusivity was not required unless the statute said so. The claimed exemption on interest on securities and income from property was therefore unavailable under both regimes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2009 08:15:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46681" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (5) TMI 7 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7631</link>
      <description>An income-tax exemption issue turned on whether a co-operative society serving consumers within municipal limits qualified as an &quot;urban consumers&#039; society&quot; under the Income-tax Acts. The Court held that the statutory explanation gave the term an exhaustive meaning, so the society fell within that category regardless of definitions in other co-operative laws or the absence of profit distribution. It further held that exemption was not preserved merely because the society also carried on banking or other business, since exclusivity was not required unless the statute said so. The claimed exemption on interest on securities and income from property was therefore unavailable under both regimes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 May 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7631</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>