<?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>2015 (9) TMI 909 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264241</link>
    <description>A trust already registered under section 12A did not lose exemption under sections 11 and 12 merely because its deed was amended without fresh intimation or re-registration. The original charitable objects remained intact; the later changes were only enabling in nature and expanded the mode of carrying out those purposes, rather than introducing any non-charitable object. No material showed that the amended objects were non-charitable or that the trust&#039;s activities were not genuine or not carried on in accordance with its charitable objects. Prior acceptance of exemption also supported the position, and contrary authorities were distinguished because they involved substantive changes in objects.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2015 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=398069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (9) TMI 909 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264241</link>
      <description>A trust already registered under section 12A did not lose exemption under sections 11 and 12 merely because its deed was amended without fresh intimation or re-registration. The original charitable objects remained intact; the later changes were only enabling in nature and expanded the mode of carrying out those purposes, rather than introducing any non-charitable object. No material showed that the amended objects were non-charitable or that the trust&#039;s activities were not genuine or not carried on in accordance with its charitable objects. Prior acceptance of exemption also supported the position, and contrary authorities were distinguished because they involved substantive changes in objects.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=264241</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>