<?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>2010 (12) TMI 1031 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209586</link>
    <description>Approval under section 10(23C)(vi) requires both a timely application and proof that the institution exists solely for educational purposes without profit. The fourteenth proviso introduced a statutory time limit for applications made on or after 1 June 2006, and the prescribed authority had no power to condone delay beyond that period. On the facts, earlier applications were not proved, so the belated 2008 application could not secure approval for assessment years before 2009-10. The institution also failed to show exclusive educational character, because its objects extended to social services and assistance to poor children, and the amended objects were not shown to be effective for the relevant years.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Jul 2013 10:55:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=183033" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (12) TMI 1031 - Andhra Pradesh High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209586</link>
      <description>Approval under section 10(23C)(vi) requires both a timely application and proof that the institution exists solely for educational purposes without profit. The fourteenth proviso introduced a statutory time limit for applications made on or after 1 June 2006, and the prescribed authority had no power to condone delay beyond that period. On the facts, earlier applications were not proved, so the belated 2008 application could not secure approval for assessment years before 2009-10. The institution also failed to show exclusive educational character, because its objects extended to social services and assistance to poor children, and the amended objects were not shown to be effective for the relevant years.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209586</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>