<?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>2019 (4) TMI 352 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377908</link>
    <description>A co-operative credit society was treated as eligible for deduction under section 80P because its activities were confined to members and there was no material showing banking business with the public at large. The absence of a banking licence under section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the distinction between a co-operative bank and a co-operative society were treated as material factors. The revenue&#039;s reliance on a cited Supreme Court decision was found inapplicable on the facts, while the view supporting the deduction was consistent with the Bombay High Court authority relied on by the CIT(A). The deduction under section 80P was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Apr 2019 12:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=565698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (4) TMI 352 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377908</link>
      <description>A co-operative credit society was treated as eligible for deduction under section 80P because its activities were confined to members and there was no material showing banking business with the public at large. The absence of a banking licence under section 22 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the distinction between a co-operative bank and a co-operative society were treated as material factors. The revenue&#039;s reliance on a cited Supreme Court decision was found inapplicable on the facts, while the view supporting the deduction was consistent with the Bombay High Court authority relied on by the CIT(A). The deduction under section 80P was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377908</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>