<?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>2000 (12) TMI 889 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168256</link>
    <description>The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee was examined under the definition of &quot;local authority&quot; in section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Applying the settled criteria for bodies resembling municipal committees, the court considered separate corporate existence, local autonomy, functional similarity to municipal bodies, popular representation and control over a local fund. Because the committee was a body corporate with a defined market area, elected office-bearers, power to regulate markets, levy fees, maintain a market fund and exercise supervisory control over the market, it satisfied the statutory tests for a local authority and its income was treated as exempt.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:06:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=375705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (12) TMI 889 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168256</link>
      <description>The Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee was examined under the definition of &quot;local authority&quot; in section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Applying the settled criteria for bodies resembling municipal committees, the court considered separate corporate existence, local autonomy, functional similarity to municipal bodies, popular representation and control over a local fund. Because the committee was a body corporate with a defined market area, elected office-bearers, power to regulate markets, levy fees, maintain a market fund and exercise supervisory control over the market, it satisfied the statutory tests for a local authority and its income was treated as exempt.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168256</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>