<?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>2020 (2) TMI 24 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391580</link>
    <description>Section 263 revision is permissible only where an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; a merely debatable view or a legally plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer does not justify revision. On that basis, revisional action was held unsustainable. The note also states that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), because co-operative banks were treated as co-operative societies for that purpose and the deduction was not defeated by section 80P(4). Mutuality was held not to be a controlling requirement for this deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Feb 2020 07:57:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=602107" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (2) TMI 24 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391580</link>
      <description>Section 263 revision is permissible only where an assessment order is both erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue; a merely debatable view or a legally plausible view taken by the Assessing Officer does not justify revision. On that basis, revisional action was held unsustainable. The note also states that interest earned by a co-operative society from deposits with co-operative banks qualifies for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), because co-operative banks were treated as co-operative societies for that purpose and the deduction was not defeated by section 80P(4). Mutuality was held not to be a controlling requirement for this deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391580</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>