https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259352 Section 10(23C) was not in issue because that exemption had been separately denied and was not the subject of the Tribunal's order. On section 11, the Tribunal's view that surcharge receipts from patients and honorary doctors were not to be denied exemption was upheld because it had followed earlier unchallenged orders on identical facts, and the concurrent findings were neither perverse nor legally erroneous. Directions under the Bombay Public Trust Act did not change the tax character of the receipts or prevent examination under the Income-tax Act. No substantial question of law arose, so the assessee's section 11 exemption remained undisturbed. en-us Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 07 Nov 2015 14:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259352 Section 10(23C) was not in issue because that exemption had been separately denied and was not the subject of the Tribunal's order. On section 11, the Tribunal's view that surcharge receipts from patients and honorary doctors were not to be denied exemption was upheld because it had followed earlier unchallenged orders on identical facts, and the concurrent findings were neither perverse nor legally erroneous. Directions under the Bombay Public Trust Act did not change the tax character of the receipts or prevent examination under the Income-tax Act. No substantial question of law arose, so the assessee's section 11 exemption remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 20 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259352