<?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>2024 (2) TMI 333 - ITAT SURAT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449182</link>
    <description>The ITAT Surat allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest received from a cooperative bank. The tribunal held that this provision permits full deduction of income by way of interest or dividends derived by a cooperative society from investment with any other cooperative society, without distinction regarding the source of investment. The tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument about adjustments, stating that the provision does not require consideration of whether interest paid exceeds interest received or the nature of investment funds. The decision followed precedent from The Amroli Vibhag case, with Revenue unable to produce contrary material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Feb 2024 09:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=742718" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (2) TMI 333 - ITAT SURAT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449182</link>
      <description>The ITAT Surat allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal regarding deduction under Section 80P(2)(d) for interest received from a cooperative bank. The tribunal held that this provision permits full deduction of income by way of interest or dividends derived by a cooperative society from investment with any other cooperative society, without distinction regarding the source of investment. The tribunal rejected the Revenue&#039;s argument about adjustments, stating that the provision does not require consideration of whether interest paid exceeds interest received or the nature of investment funds. The decision followed precedent from The Amroli Vibhag case, with Revenue unable to produce contrary material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=449182</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>