https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257523 The HC upheld the rejection of approval under section 10(23C)(via), finding the petitioner did not fulfill the primary requirement of being established solely for philanthropic purposes. The petitioner generated significant surplus funds, which were used to acquire capital assets and increase fixed assets substantially over four years. The court agreed with the respondent that this indicated systematic profit generation rather than purely charitable activity. The minimal concessional treatment claimed further undermined the petitioner's philanthropic claim. The HC concluded the respondent's decision was neither arbitrary nor perverse and declined to interfere under Article 226, ruling against the petitioner. en-us Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Aug 2025 15:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257523 The HC upheld the rejection of approval under section 10(23C)(via), finding the petitioner did not fulfill the primary requirement of being established solely for philanthropic purposes. The petitioner generated significant surplus funds, which were used to acquire capital assets and increase fixed assets substantially over four years. The court agreed with the respondent that this indicated systematic profit generation rather than purely charitable activity. The minimal concessional treatment claimed further undermined the petitioner's philanthropic claim. The HC concluded the respondent's decision was neither arbitrary nor perverse and declined to interfere under Article 226, ruling against the petitioner. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 12 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257523