<?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 (11) TMI 1603 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278574</link>
    <description>Section 80P(4) bars a co-operative bank from claiming the general deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) unless it falls within the protected statutory categories of a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank; on that basis, the general deduction claim was rejected. Any limited deduction linked to activity as a State Land Development Bank was left for fresh factual examination on remand. Contribution to an unrecognized superannuation fund was not deductible because the fund was not a recognised provident fund, approved superannuation fund, or approved gratuity fund, and the alternative claim under section 37(1) was not established.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2019 06:04:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=557499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 1603 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278574</link>
      <description>Section 80P(4) bars a co-operative bank from claiming the general deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i) unless it falls within the protected statutory categories of a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank; on that basis, the general deduction claim was rejected. Any limited deduction linked to activity as a State Land Development Bank was left for fresh factual examination on remand. Contribution to an unrecognized superannuation fund was not deductible because the fund was not a recognised provident fund, approved superannuation fund, or approved gratuity fund, and the alternative claim under section 37(1) was not established.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278574</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>