<?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>2014 (2) TMI 1231 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178750</link>
    <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, restoring the registration of the trust under section 12A for AY 2009-10. The DIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to cancel the registration, as the amended provisions of section 12AA(3) were not retroactive, and the CBDT Circular No.1/2011 supported this interpretation. The trust&#039;s activities were considered business in nature, triggering the proviso to section 2(15), but the cancellation was deemed unjustified for the relevant year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 10:05:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=416256" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (2) TMI 1231 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178750</link>
      <description>The tribunal allowed the appeal, restoring the registration of the trust under section 12A for AY 2009-10. The DIT(E) lacked jurisdiction to cancel the registration, as the amended provisions of section 12AA(3) were not retroactive, and the CBDT Circular No.1/2011 supported this interpretation. The trust&#039;s activities were considered business in nature, triggering the proviso to section 2(15), but the cancellation was deemed unjustified for the relevant year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178750</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>