Transaction value rejection requires reliable corroboration; refundable VAT is excluded and temporary registration does not defeat new-vehicle exempti...
Appellate jurisdiction remains available where a wrist-worn gold ornament cannot conclusively be characterised as imported baggage at the preliminary ...
Written complaint requirement bars cognizance on police reports for securities offences, while unsupported breach of trust and cheating allegations fa...
Risk-based postal import clearance standardises electronic assessment, document requests, duty realisation and delivery controls at Foreign Post Offic...
Customs Cargo Service Provider appointment extends custodianship to additional terminal land, subject to cargo-control, security and licence condition...
The ITAT Bangalore considered whether an organization engaged in microfinancing activities qualified for exemption u/s 11 as a charitable entity or if its activities were commercial in nature. The tribunal emphasized that if an organization's primary activity is trade or business, it must not have a dominant profit motive and should not use charity as a cover for commercial activities. The tribunal noted that charging exorbitant interest rates akin to commercial banks indicated a profit-driven motive, making it ineligible for exemption. The organization's activities did not align with benefiting low-income groups as required for charitable status. The tribunal ruled in favor of the revenue authority, denying the organization's claim for exemption u/s 11.
The ITAT Bangalore considered whether an organization engaged in microfinancing activities qualified for exemption u/s 11 as a charitable entity or if its activities were commercial in nature. The tribunal emphasized that if an organization's primary activity is trade or business, it must not have a dominant profit motive and should not use charity as a cover for commercial activities. The tribunal noted that charging exorbitant interest rates akin to commercial banks indicated a profit-driven motive, making it ineligible for exemption. The organization's activities did not align with benefiting low-income groups as required for charitable status. The tribunal ruled in favor of the revenue authority, denying the organization's claim for exemption u/s 11.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4784
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
