<?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>1992 (4) TMI 237 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168649</link>
    <description>Exemption from general tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act depended on strict satisfaction of two conditions: the property had to be used for a charitable purpose, and the society had to be supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions. Educational activity was treated as charitable only where it was not conducted on commercial lines and the dominant object was public benefit; a school run by a society without profit distribution was not enough by itself. The requirement of voluntary contributions also demanded real, substantive dependence on such contributions, not internal transfers or compelled funding. On the stated facts, neither condition was met, so the exemption was unavailable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379068" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 237 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168649</link>
      <description>Exemption from general tax under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act depended on strict satisfaction of two conditions: the property had to be used for a charitable purpose, and the society had to be supported wholly or in part by voluntary contributions. Educational activity was treated as charitable only where it was not conducted on commercial lines and the dominant object was public benefit; a school run by a society without profit distribution was not enough by itself. The requirement of voluntary contributions also demanded real, substantive dependence on such contributions, not internal transfers or compelled funding. On the stated facts, neither condition was met, so the exemption was unavailable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>