<?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>2018 (1) TMI 856 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354120</link>
    <description>A primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 was treated as entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act because the Registrar&#039;s certificate supported that classification, and the Income-tax authorities could not go behind it. The jurisdictional High Court ruling in Chirakkal was applied to confirm eligibility under section 80P(2), while the Supreme Court decision in Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. was distinguished on facts because it concerned deposits from nominal members treated as non-members under a different State law. The Tribunal also noted that the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 did not justify denial of the claim. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jan 2018 08:25:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=505012" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 856 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354120</link>
      <description>A primary agricultural credit society registered under the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 was treated as entitled to deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act because the Registrar&#039;s certificate supported that classification, and the Income-tax authorities could not go behind it. The jurisdictional High Court ruling in Chirakkal was applied to confirm eligibility under section 80P(2), while the Supreme Court decision in Citizens Co-operative Society Ltd. was distinguished on facts because it concerned deposits from nominal members treated as non-members under a different State law. The Tribunal also noted that the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 did not justify denial of the claim. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354120</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>