<?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>2016 (2) TMI 802 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272097</link>
    <description>The appeal questioned the Tribunal&#039;s decision to grant registration under section 12A of the Act to the assessee, citing doubts about entitlement due to commercial nature of services provided by BMTC and substantial surplus generation. Issues included deviation from primary objective, commercial activities, nonoperating revenue, commercial purpose, formation and operational model of BMTC, interpretation of first proviso to section 2(15), authority to deny exemption, conditions for cancellation of registration, interplay between registration benefits and exemptions, and charitable nature of activities. Appellant disputed Tribunal&#039;s reliance on KIADB judgment and failure to consider impact of amended provisions on charitable status and receipt values.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 26 Feb 2016 06:21:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=417666" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (2) TMI 802 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272097</link>
      <description>The appeal questioned the Tribunal&#039;s decision to grant registration under section 12A of the Act to the assessee, citing doubts about entitlement due to commercial nature of services provided by BMTC and substantial surplus generation. Issues included deviation from primary objective, commercial activities, nonoperating revenue, commercial purpose, formation and operational model of BMTC, interpretation of first proviso to section 2(15), authority to deny exemption, conditions for cancellation of registration, interplay between registration benefits and exemptions, and charitable nature of activities. Appellant disputed Tribunal&#039;s reliance on KIADB judgment and failure to consider impact of amended provisions on charitable status and receipt values.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272097</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>