<?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>2025 (2) TMI 1794 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468425</link>
    <description>Interest earned by a co-operative society on deposits or investments made from operational or surplus funds linked to its banking or credit activities was treated as business income and as eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate-bench view and the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s approach that, where such funds are not immediately required for day-to-day operations, the resulting interest retains the character of income from banking or business activity. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on the Supreme Court authority was distinguished because that case involved surplus from a different commercial activity, not operational funds connected with the assessee&#039;s business. The assessee&#039;s deduction claim was therefore allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 May 2026 18:36:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=900030" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2025 (2) TMI 1794 - ITAT NAGPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468425</link>
      <description>Interest earned by a co-operative society on deposits or investments made from operational or surplus funds linked to its banking or credit activities was treated as business income and as eligible for deduction under section 80P(2)(a)(i). The Tribunal followed its earlier coordinate-bench view and the jurisdictional High Court&#039;s approach that, where such funds are not immediately required for day-to-day operations, the resulting interest retains the character of income from banking or business activity. The Revenue&#039;s reliance on the Supreme Court authority was distinguished because that case involved surplus from a different commercial activity, not operational funds connected with the assessee&#039;s business. The assessee&#039;s deduction claim was therefore allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Feb 2025 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=468425</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>