<?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 (9) TMI 327 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798301</link>
    <description>Deduction for a co-operative society providing credit facilities to members depends on the statutory conditions for Section 80P(2)(a)(i). A society not shown to be a co-operative bank, including through an RBI banking licence or other statutory conditions, is not excluded by Section 80P(4). General allegations of failed mutuality, nominal or non-member dealings, irregularities, or fund diversion cannot deny the deduction without identified year-specific transactions and attributable income. Further factual verification should not permit a roving enquiry where prior proceedings provided opportunity to produce evidence. A protective disallowance unsupported by proven nominal-member dealings does not itself establish failed mutuality.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 08:24:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=920932" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2026 (9) TMI 327 - ITAT JODHPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798301</link>
      <description>Deduction for a co-operative society providing credit facilities to members depends on the statutory conditions for Section 80P(2)(a)(i). A society not shown to be a co-operative bank, including through an RBI banking licence or other statutory conditions, is not excluded by Section 80P(4). General allegations of failed mutuality, nominal or non-member dealings, irregularities, or fund diversion cannot deny the deduction without identified year-specific transactions and attributable income. Further factual verification should not permit a roving enquiry where prior proceedings provided opportunity to produce evidence. A protective disallowance unsupported by proven nominal-member dealings does not itself establish failed mutuality.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=798301</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>