<?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 (2) TMI 725 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207780</link>
    <description>Exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available where an educational institution existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit. Admission fees, corpus contributions and parental loans, when used for infrastructure and educational activity, did not by themselves show a profit motive, and the absence of any diversion of funds or personal gain supported the claim. Surplus application to educational objects was consistent with exemption. Reliance on the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 was misplaced because the relevant provisions applied only to aided institutions, not unaided ones. The unchanged objects of the society and earlier grant of exemption also supported consistent treatment of the claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=181254" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (2) TMI 725 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207780</link>
      <description>Exemption under Section 10(22) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was available where an educational institution existed solely for educational purposes and not for profit. Admission fees, corpus contributions and parental loans, when used for infrastructure and educational activity, did not by themselves show a profit motive, and the absence of any diversion of funds or personal gain supported the claim. Surplus application to educational objects was consistent with exemption. Reliance on the Delhi School Education Act, 1973 was misplaced because the relevant provisions applied only to aided institutions, not unaided ones. The unchanged objects of the society and earlier grant of exemption also supported consistent treatment of the claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=207780</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>