<?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 (4) TMI 1367 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282949</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned from banks in both assessment years. The Tribunal found that the interest income was attributable to the business of banking and providing credit facilities, making it eligible for the deduction under section 80P. The decision was influenced by a Karnataka High Court ruling that clarified the Supreme Court judgment cited by the revenue authorities was specific to the facts of that case.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 31 Aug 2019 16:49:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=585613" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 1367 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282949</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, allowing the deduction claimed under section 80P(2)(a)(i) for interest income earned from banks in both assessment years. The Tribunal found that the interest income was attributable to the business of banking and providing credit facilities, making it eligible for the deduction under section 80P. The decision was influenced by a Karnataka High Court ruling that clarified the Supreme Court judgment cited by the revenue authorities was specific to the facts of that case.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=282949</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>