<?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>2010 (2) TMI 1183 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180465</link>
    <description>The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding charitable exemptions for a registered trust. The Assessing Officer initially denied the exemption, but the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT ruled in favor of the trust, emphasizing that the trust&#039;s activities, including establishing a hospital, aligned with charitable purposes. The ITAT highlighted that the acquisition of capital assets for the hospital constituted legitimate charitable expenditure, leading to over 85% of funds being applied for charitable purposes. The exemption under Section 11 was upheld for the assessed year.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Aug 2023 12:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=421285" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (2) TMI 1183 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180465</link>
      <description>The case involved a dispute over the interpretation of Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding charitable exemptions for a registered trust. The Assessing Officer initially denied the exemption, but the CIT (Appeals) and ITAT ruled in favor of the trust, emphasizing that the trust&#039;s activities, including establishing a hospital, aligned with charitable purposes. The ITAT highlighted that the acquisition of capital assets for the hospital constituted legitimate charitable expenditure, leading to over 85% of funds being applied for charitable purposes. The exemption under Section 11 was upheld for the assessed year.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180465</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>