<?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 (8) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235750</link>
    <description>A charitable institution was not denied exemption under Section 11 because the record did not show any clear direct or indirect diversion of income for the benefit of persons covered by Section 13(3); donations to other charitable bodies and ordinary head-office expenditure were insufficient to attract Section 13(1)(c), so the exemption was sustained. The institution was also allowed to accumulate 25% of its income for charitable purposes because such accumulation was within the statutory limit and supported the charitable objects. Compliance with Section 11(2) was held to be established on the facts, so the accumulated amount was treated as validly set apart for charity and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Feb 2025 15:36:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=198160" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (8) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235750</link>
      <description>A charitable institution was not denied exemption under Section 11 because the record did not show any clear direct or indirect diversion of income for the benefit of persons covered by Section 13(3); donations to other charitable bodies and ordinary head-office expenditure were insufficient to attract Section 13(1)(c), so the exemption was sustained. The institution was also allowed to accumulate 25% of its income for charitable purposes because such accumulation was within the statutory limit and supported the charitable objects. Compliance with Section 11(2) was held to be established on the facts, so the accumulated amount was treated as validly set apart for charity and the Revenue&#039;s challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 31 Jul 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=235750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>