<?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 (12) TMI 915 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390032</link>
    <description>Interest paid by a co-operative bank to its members was treated as exempt from TDS under section 194A(3)(v) and section 194A(3)(viia), read with the CBDT clarification, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable; the later amendment to section 194A was regarded as prospective and inapplicable to the year in question. The amortization of premium on government securities was also held allowable as a deduction because it arose from statutory liquidity requirements under section 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, was supported by RBI treatment, and was consistent with the assessee&#039;s earlier years&#039; treatment on similar facts. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed on both issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Dec 2019 07:45:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=598072" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (12) TMI 915 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390032</link>
      <description>Interest paid by a co-operative bank to its members was treated as exempt from TDS under section 194A(3)(v) and section 194A(3)(viia), read with the CBDT clarification, so disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) was not sustainable; the later amendment to section 194A was regarded as prospective and inapplicable to the year in question. The amortization of premium on government securities was also held allowable as a deduction because it arose from statutory liquidity requirements under section 24 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, was supported by RBI treatment, and was consistent with the assessee&#039;s earlier years&#039; treatment on similar facts. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed on both issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390032</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>