Supervisory permanent establishment requires project-wise duration and qualifying construction nexus; offshore supplies and salary reimbursements rema...
Transfer-pricing comparability permits fresh objections and filters where software service comparables are functionally unsuitable for arm's-length pr...
Territorial rendering requirement excludes China-based management and consultancy services from fees for technical services under the India-China DTAA...
Page of 4888
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
281 to 300 of 97755 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the assessee, a trust registered u/s 12AA, qualified for exemption u/s 11 as a charitable entity. The AO argued the trust's activities were commercial due to rental receipts exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs, thus not charitable u/s 2(15). The CIT(A) allowed exemption. The Tribunal found no profit motive in the trust's activities, with funds invested for charitable purposes. The AO failed to justify treating rental income as commercial. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case allowing a 20% mark-up on receipts for exemption. The CBDT clarified that mere receipts do not make income commercial. The proviso to section 2(15) requires public utility activities not exceeding 20% of total receipts for exemption. As rent receipts were below 20%, the proviso didn't apply. Even if it did, full exemption u/s 11 couldn't be withdrawn. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant benefits u/s 11 & 12, ruling against the revenue authority.
The Appellate Tribunal considered whether the assessee, a trust registered u/s 12AA, qualified for exemption u/s 11 as a charitable entity. The AO argued the trust's activities were commercial due to rental receipts exceeding Rs. 25 lakhs, thus not charitable u/s 2(15). The CIT(A) allowed exemption. The Tribunal found no profit motive in the trust's activities, with funds invested for charitable purposes. The AO failed to justify treating rental income as commercial. The Tribunal cited a Supreme Court case allowing a 20% mark-up on receipts for exemption. The CBDT clarified that mere receipts do not make income commercial. The proviso to section 2(15) requires public utility activities not exceeding 20% of total receipts for exemption. As rent receipts were below 20%, the proviso didn't apply. Even if it did, full exemption u/s 11 couldn't be withdrawn. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to grant benefits u/s 11 & 12, ruling against the revenue authority.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.