<?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 (4) TMI 874 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326760</link>
    <description>An educational institution claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) must satisfy both the educational-purpose test and the Government-financing test. Incidental surplus does not defeat exemption where the predominant object is education and the surplus is ploughed back into educational infrastructure and expansion; on that issue, the institution qualified. However, &quot;wholly or substantially financed by the Government&quot; requires direct governmental grants or contributions, and statutory fee receipts are not treated as government financing; on that issue, the institution failed. The exemption was therefore denied because the second condition was not met.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Jan 2017 12:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=425016" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (4) TMI 874 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326760</link>
      <description>An educational institution claiming exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab) must satisfy both the educational-purpose test and the Government-financing test. Incidental surplus does not defeat exemption where the predominant object is education and the surplus is ploughed back into educational infrastructure and expansion; on that issue, the institution qualified. However, &quot;wholly or substantially financed by the Government&quot; requires direct governmental grants or contributions, and statutory fee receipts are not treated as government financing; on that issue, the institution failed. The exemption was therefore denied because the second condition was not met.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Apr 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=326760</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>