<?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 (1) TMI 1607 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282554</link>
    <description>A co-operative bank&#039;s payment to an Education Fund was treated as an allowable fund-related outgo and the disallowance was not sustainable where binding precedent had already accepted similar claims. Members&#039; welfare fund expenditure was held to have a business nexus and was allowable under the business expenditure principles applicable to a co-operative institution. Deduction for the special long-term finance fund under section 36(1)(viii) was allowed because the amount set apart matched the prescribed profit-based working and was supported by earlier years&#039; decisions. Investment depreciation was also accepted on the basis of a verified computation and reconciliation. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed and all additions remained deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Aug 2019 11:11:11 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=583421" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1607 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282554</link>
      <description>A co-operative bank&#039;s payment to an Education Fund was treated as an allowable fund-related outgo and the disallowance was not sustainable where binding precedent had already accepted similar claims. Members&#039; welfare fund expenditure was held to have a business nexus and was allowable under the business expenditure principles applicable to a co-operative institution. Deduction for the special long-term finance fund under section 36(1)(viii) was allowed because the amount set apart matched the prescribed profit-based working and was supported by earlier years&#039; decisions. Investment depreciation was also accepted on the basis of a verified computation and reconciliation. The Revenue&#039;s appeal failed and all additions remained deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>