<?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>2011 (3) TMI 352 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205183</link>
    <description>Renewal of approval under section 80G could not be refused where the trust&#039;s section 12A registration remained valid and uncancelled. Although the objects were amended under section 50A(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the changes were intimated late, the amended objects continued to be charitable, the original charitable purpose was not deleted, and the enlargement of beneficiaries did not alter the trust&#039;s basic character. Late intimation in Form No. 10A was only a procedural requirement and not a statutory ground for cancellation of registration or denial of approval. The revenue&#039;s cited precedent was distinguishable on facts because it involved wholesale and material changes in objects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 15:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=178703" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (3) TMI 352 - ITAT, MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205183</link>
      <description>Renewal of approval under section 80G could not be refused where the trust&#039;s section 12A registration remained valid and uncancelled. Although the objects were amended under section 50A(1) of the Bombay Public Trust Act and the changes were intimated late, the amended objects continued to be charitable, the original charitable purpose was not deleted, and the enlargement of beneficiaries did not alter the trust&#039;s basic character. Late intimation in Form No. 10A was only a procedural requirement and not a statutory ground for cancellation of registration or denial of approval. The revenue&#039;s cited precedent was distinguishable on facts because it involved wholesale and material changes in objects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=205183</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>