<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1985 (8) TMI 138 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69381</link>
    <description>Under section 11(2) read with Rule 17, accumulated unspent income must be set aside for the purpose of the trust, but Form No. 10 need not specify a purpose beyond the trust&#039;s objects. Reproducing the objects of the trust in Form No. 10 was treated as sufficient compliance, because the provision does not require a separate, narrower accumulation purpose outside those objects. The Revenue&#039;s objection that the form merely restated the trust objects was rejected, and the accumulation claim was accepted as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 06 Apr 2011 14:40:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 138 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69381</link>
      <description>Under section 11(2) read with Rule 17, accumulated unspent income must be set aside for the purpose of the trust, but Form No. 10 need not specify a purpose beyond the trust&#039;s objects. Reproducing the objects of the trust in Form No. 10 was treated as sufficient compliance, because the provision does not require a separate, narrower accumulation purpose outside those objects. The Revenue&#039;s objection that the form merely restated the trust objects was rejected, and the accumulation claim was accepted as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>