<?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>1956 (8) TMI 46 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168477</link>
    <description>Donations received for construction of a college and Mass stipends were held not to be taxable income because the authorities first had to determine whether the receipts were income at all; they wrongly treated deletion of an exemption for voluntary contributions as making every such receipt taxable. The receipts were characterised as specific gifts or capital receipts, casual and non-recurring in nature, and the Mass stipends were misconceived as payments to the monastery rather than stipends attached to the priest&#039;s duty to say Mass. The writ court could intervene under article 226 because the errors went to the root of jurisdiction, and alternative remedies did not bar certiorari in these circumstances.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Mar 2015 13:08:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=378133" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1956 (8) TMI 46 - TRAVANCORE-COCHIN HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168477</link>
      <description>Donations received for construction of a college and Mass stipends were held not to be taxable income because the authorities first had to determine whether the receipts were income at all; they wrongly treated deletion of an exemption for voluntary contributions as making every such receipt taxable. The receipts were characterised as specific gifts or capital receipts, casual and non-recurring in nature, and the Mass stipends were misconceived as payments to the monastery rather than stipends attached to the priest&#039;s duty to say Mass. The writ court could intervene under article 226 because the errors went to the root of jurisdiction, and alternative remedies did not bar certiorari in these circumstances.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 1956 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168477</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>