<?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>1983 (7) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27960</link>
    <description>Income from commission, brokerage, Government subsidy, admission fee, incidental charges, financial penalties and miscellaneous receipts was treated as attributable to the banking business of a co-operative society, because the material test under section 80P(2)(a)(i) is whether the income arises from activities normally forming part of banking operations or credit facilities; the deduction was therefore available. Reassessment under section 147(b) was also invalid, since reopening based only on the successor officer&#039;s view that the earlier allowance was mistaken amounted to a mere change of opinion and was unsupported by fresh information; the reassessment was struck down.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Feb 2010 11:08:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66958" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (7) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27960</link>
      <description>Income from commission, brokerage, Government subsidy, admission fee, incidental charges, financial penalties and miscellaneous receipts was treated as attributable to the banking business of a co-operative society, because the material test under section 80P(2)(a)(i) is whether the income arises from activities normally forming part of banking operations or credit facilities; the deduction was therefore available. Reassessment under section 147(b) was also invalid, since reopening based only on the successor officer&#039;s view that the earlier allowance was mistaken amounted to a mere change of opinion and was unsupported by fresh information; the reassessment was struck down.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27960</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>