https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346478 SC held that the appellant, though registered under MACSA, operated like a finance business rather than a mutual co-operative: it maintained nominal depositors who were not true members, advanced loans to non-members and the general public without Registrar approval, and used deposits for fixed-return purposes. These activities breached MACSA and defeated the principle of mutuality, so the appellant was ineligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P was not available. Decision against the appellant. en-us Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 05 Sep 2025 14:58:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346478 SC held that the appellant, though registered under MACSA, operated like a finance business rather than a mutual co-operative: it maintained nominal depositors who were not true members, advanced loans to non-members and the general public without Registrar approval, and used deposits for fixed-return purposes. These activities breached MACSA and defeated the principle of mutuality, so the appellant was ineligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and Section 80P was not available. Decision against the appellant. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Aug 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346478