<?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>2026 (7) TMI 606 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794720</link>
    <description>Interest earned by a co-operative housing society from deposits with co-operative banks was held to qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), because the expression &quot;co-operative society&quot; was read broadly and section 80P(4) was treated as excluding only a co-operative bank from its own claim, not from the payer-side deduction available to another co-operative society. The Tribunal also held that disallowance of the claim could not be made while processing the return under section 143(1), since the issue was supported by precedent and was debatable rather than an apparent mistake. The adjustment was therefore unsustainable and the deduction was to be allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2026 07:39:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=911014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (7) TMI 606 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794720</link>
      <description>Interest earned by a co-operative housing society from deposits with co-operative banks was held to qualify for deduction under section 80P(2)(d), because the expression &quot;co-operative society&quot; was read broadly and section 80P(4) was treated as excluding only a co-operative bank from its own claim, not from the payer-side deduction available to another co-operative society. The Tribunal also held that disallowance of the claim could not be made while processing the return under section 143(1), since the issue was supported by precedent and was debatable rather than an apparent mistake. The adjustment was therefore unsustainable and the deduction was to be allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794720</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>