<?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>2005 (7) TMI 668 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180705</link>
    <description>Withdrawal of an earlier exemption did not bar development authorities from seeking registration under the charitable registration provisions of the Income-tax Act. Registration under sections 11, 12A and 12AA turns on the nature of the objects and the genuineness of activities, not on prior enjoyment of a different exemption regime. On the substantive test, the authorities&#039; housing, planning and development functions were treated as advancement of an object of general public utility, with incidental receipts or surplus not defeating charity where profit was not the dominant purpose. The commentary states that registration should not be refused merely because a prior exemption was omitted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2024 15:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=422014" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 668 - ITAT LUCKNOW</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180705</link>
      <description>Withdrawal of an earlier exemption did not bar development authorities from seeking registration under the charitable registration provisions of the Income-tax Act. Registration under sections 11, 12A and 12AA turns on the nature of the objects and the genuineness of activities, not on prior enjoyment of a different exemption regime. On the substantive test, the authorities&#039; housing, planning and development functions were treated as advancement of an object of general public utility, with incidental receipts or surplus not defeating charity where profit was not the dominant purpose. The commentary states that registration should not be refused merely because a prior exemption was omitted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180705</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>