<?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 (12) TMI 1672 - ITAT BENGALURU</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282240</link>
    <description>Deduction under section 80P was examined in the context of whether the assessee functioned as a co-operative society or as a co-operative bank, because section 80P(4) and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 could exclude the claim if banking activity and regulatory recognition were established. The Tribunal noted that the factual position, including the assessee&#039;s activities, RBI recognition or clarification, and availability of any banking licence or certificate, required verification. It also referred to the relevance of prior Tribunal guidance on Souharda institutions. The matter was therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, leaving the deduction claim open for reconsideration on the verified facts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Jul 2019 10:02:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=581576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1672 - ITAT BENGALURU</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282240</link>
      <description>Deduction under section 80P was examined in the context of whether the assessee functioned as a co-operative society or as a co-operative bank, because section 80P(4) and the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 could exclude the claim if banking activity and regulatory recognition were established. The Tribunal noted that the factual position, including the assessee&#039;s activities, RBI recognition or clarification, and availability of any banking licence or certificate, required verification. It also referred to the relevance of prior Tribunal guidance on Souharda institutions. The matter was therefore remitted to the Assessing Officer for fresh examination, leaving the deduction claim open for reconsideration on the verified facts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Dec 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282240</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>