Charitable institution cannot lose exemption merely because some activities incidentally benefit a religious community; retrospective registration can...
Page of 4824
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
2761 to 2780 of 96463 Results
❮
❯
❯❯
0 / 200
Expand Note
Add to Folder
No Folders have been created
+
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
The Tribunal held that the impugned land transfers satisfied section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA because the Trusts provided the consideration, the properties stood in Shri Lamba's name, and the arrangement was for the Trusts' immediate and future benefit. It rejected the section 53A-based exclusion, finding that the statutory carve-out applies to a seller-buyer part-performance situation and not to a tripartite arrangement involving a third-party beneficiary. The fiduciary capacity exception also failed, as the MoUs showed deliberate name lending to bypass the prohibition on Trusts buying agricultural land. The later Karnataka law amendment did not alter the benami character.
The Tribunal held that the impugned land transfers satisfied section 2(9)(A) of the PBPTA because the Trusts provided the consideration, the properties stood in Shri Lamba's name, and the arrangement was for the Trusts' immediate and future benefit. It rejected the section 53A-based exclusion, finding that the statutory carve-out applies to a seller-buyer part-performance situation and not to a tripartite arrangement involving a third-party beneficiary. The fiduciary capacity exception also failed, as the MoUs showed deliberate name lending to bypass the prohibition on Trusts buying agricultural land. The later Karnataka law amendment did not alter the benami character.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4824 
Join Channel 
