<?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 (10) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237564</link>
    <description>Charitable activities under the residuary clause were held to include promotion and awareness work on global standards, despite charging fees; the court found absence of profit motive and a philanthropic intent, so fee receipts did not convert the activity into business and the petitioner retained exemption under section 10(23C). The court rejected the revenue&#039;s contention that fees equate to commerce, explained that operational selfsustainment and token fees do not defeat charitable purpose, and ruled that when no business exists the requirement for separate books for business is redundant. The court interpreted provisos to the definition to apply only where genuine business is conducted and thresholds disqualify only bona fide commercial receipts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Feb 2026 15:18:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=199971" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (10) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237564</link>
      <description>Charitable activities under the residuary clause were held to include promotion and awareness work on global standards, despite charging fees; the court found absence of profit motive and a philanthropic intent, so fee receipts did not convert the activity into business and the petitioner retained exemption under section 10(23C). The court rejected the revenue&#039;s contention that fees equate to commerce, explained that operational selfsustainment and token fees do not defeat charitable purpose, and ruled that when no business exists the requirement for separate books for business is redundant. The court interpreted provisos to the definition to apply only where genuine business is conducted and thresholds disqualify only bona fide commercial receipts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 26 Sep 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=237564</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>