Ratification of resignation acceptance validates separation retrospectively, while withdrawal may be refused through reasoned administrative discretio...
Nature-dependent electricity contracts receive new Ind AS accounting, hedge designation, transition and financial-statement disclosure requirements fr...
Alternative GST remedy permitted protective writ intervention for ex parte adjudication, preserving independent appellate review of input tax credit d...
Assessment against deceased sole proprietor requires proceedings against the legal representative, rendering prior assessment and appellate orders inv...
Residential waste collection classification under SAC 999423 defeats composite-supply exemption where facilitating goods are not transferred to the lo...
Page of 4805
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
261 to 280 of 96100 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
Exemption u/s 11 - whether the objects of the trust were charitable? - The High court found that the issue of interpretation of Section 11 was covered by previous rulings and did not raise substantial questions of law. - As for the restriction of denial of benefit under Section 11, the court agreed with the respondent's argument, stating that only income used for the benefit of prohibited persons should be denied exemption. - Regarding the applicability of the Bharat Diamond Bourse case, the court clarified that it did not specify whether the denial of benefit under Section 11 should apply to the entire income or only to diverted funds. - The court admitted the question regarding the eligibility of expenditure incurred on new objects for exemption under Section 11 for further consideration.
Exemption u/s 11 - whether the objects of the trust were charitable? - The High court found that the issue of interpretation of Section 11 was covered by previous rulings and did not raise substantial questions of law. - As for the restriction of denial of benefit under Section 11, the court agreed with the respondent's argument, stating that only income used for the benefit of prohibited persons should be denied exemption. - Regarding the applicability of the Bharat Diamond Bourse case, the court clarified that it did not specify whether the denial of benefit under Section 11 should apply to the entire income or only to diverted funds. - The court admitted the question regarding the eligibility of expenditure incurred on new objects for exemption under Section 11 for further consideration.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
