Rectification of mistake remains limited to self-evident record errors, preventing merits review through miscellaneous applications and preserving fin...
Tender creditworthiness conditions may extend to de facto Promoter Directors, with post-participation challenges generally barred absent arbitrariness...
Corporate representation in PMLA summons proceedings permitted through an authorised signatory, subject to directors' continuing cooperation and atten...
Helicopter charter classification requires effective control analysis, while territorial performance, reasoned credit orders and wilful suppression de...
Specified fund definition expands PAN exemption eligibility for registered alternative investment funds and qualifying International Financial Service...
Tax exemption for specified legal-services authority income applies retrospectively, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and...
Page of 4792
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
701 to 720 of 95833 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The assessee trust was denied exemption u/s 11 as it was found to be systematically exploiting its property commercially by renting out space for exhibitions, corporate meetings, etc., which were not related to the objects of the trust. The Assessing Officer held that these activities were not incidental to attaining the trust's objectives. Additionally, the assessee failed to maintain separate books of accounts for such commercial receipts as required u/s 11(4A). The Tribunal observed that based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, an entity can be granted exemption if the profits generated while carrying out general public utility objectives do not exceed 20% of total receipts as per the second proviso to Section 2(15). However, this aspect was not adjudicated upon by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, considering the ratio of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority judgment regarding the 20% limit on commercial receipts. The revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The assessee trust was denied exemption u/s 11 as it was found to be systematically exploiting its property commercially by renting out space for exhibitions, corporate meetings, etc., which were not related to the objects of the trust. The Assessing Officer held that these activities were not incidental to attaining the trust's objectives. Additionally, the assessee failed to maintain separate books of accounts for such commercial receipts as required u/s 11(4A). The Tribunal observed that based on the Supreme Court's decision in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority, an entity can be granted exemption if the profits generated while carrying out general public utility objectives do not exceed 20% of total receipts as per the second proviso to Section 2(15). However, this aspect was not adjudicated upon by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer to decide afresh, considering the ratio of the Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority judgment regarding the 20% limit on commercial receipts. The revenue's appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.