<?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>2013 (7) TMI 205 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235047</link>
    <description>A statutory professional body retained charitable character because its coaching, training and campus placement activities were integral to its regulatory and educational objects; charging fees did not by itself make those activities trade, commerce or business, and denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) on that basis was unsustainable. The record also did not establish any violation of section 13, as the funds routed to the research foundation were stated to support research and educational purposes aligned with statutory objectives, with no finding of prohibited investment or deposit. The refusals of exemption therefore could not stand, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2025 15:30:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=197457" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (7) TMI 205 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235047</link>
      <description>A statutory professional body retained charitable character because its coaching, training and campus placement activities were integral to its regulatory and educational objects; charging fees did not by itself make those activities trade, commerce or business, and denial of exemption under section 10(23C)(iv) on that basis was unsustainable. The record also did not establish any violation of section 13, as the funds routed to the research foundation were stated to support research and educational purposes aligned with statutory objectives, with no finding of prohibited investment or deposit. The refusals of exemption therefore could not stand, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>