<?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>2011 (11) TMI 678 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177377</link>
    <description>The court upheld the denial of exemption under s. 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The institution&#039;s aims were found to be partly religious, diverting funds to the Diocese of Jalandhar, leading to the rejection of the exemption application. Despite the petitioner&#039;s arguments of non-discrimination and catering to all religions, the court affirmed the decision, emphasizing the need for institutions to exist solely for educational purposes. The court highlighted the authority&#039;s power to withdraw exemptions if funds were misused and dismissed the writ petition, stating that interference was unwarranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412417" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 678 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177377</link>
      <description>The court upheld the denial of exemption under s. 10(23C)(vi) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The institution&#039;s aims were found to be partly religious, diverting funds to the Diocese of Jalandhar, leading to the rejection of the exemption application. Despite the petitioner&#039;s arguments of non-discrimination and catering to all religions, the court affirmed the decision, emphasizing the need for institutions to exist solely for educational purposes. The court highlighted the authority&#039;s power to withdraw exemptions if funds were misused and dismissed the writ petition, stating that interference was unwarranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>