<?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 (9) TMI 635 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385867</link>
    <description>A co-operative society qualifying as a primary agricultural credit society was entitled to deduction under Section 80P, because the statutory definition treated associate members as members and membership of a separate class did not defeat relief. The exclusion in Section 80P(4) was confined to co-operative banks and did not extend to a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. On the facts, the Revenue did not establish that the society carried on banking activities of the kind excluded by the provision, so the deduction was allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Sep 2019 11:12:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=587360" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (9) TMI 635 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385867</link>
      <description>A co-operative society qualifying as a primary agricultural credit society was entitled to deduction under Section 80P, because the statutory definition treated associate members as members and membership of a separate class did not defeat relief. The exclusion in Section 80P(4) was confined to co-operative banks and did not extend to a primary agricultural credit society or a primary co-operative agricultural and rural development bank. On the facts, the Revenue did not establish that the society carried on banking activities of the kind excluded by the provision, so the deduction was allowed and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=385867</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>