<?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>1962 (3) TMI 102 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184192</link>
    <description>Whether an association qualified as a public charitable institution under income-tax law turned on its dominant object: the court held the memorandum&#039;s principal object to promote home industries, arts and crafts is of general public utility. Ancillary powers (information, advances, credit promotion, exhibitions, trade in products, property holding) were construed as furthering that dominant object, and constitutional prohibitions on profit distribution and restricted remuneration negated private profit. Comparative English authorities were distinguished on facts, and analogous precedents supported treating promotion of cottage industries benefiting persons of limited means as charitable; exemption under the statute followed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2016 17:45:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=433546" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (3) TMI 102 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184192</link>
      <description>Whether an association qualified as a public charitable institution under income-tax law turned on its dominant object: the court held the memorandum&#039;s principal object to promote home industries, arts and crafts is of general public utility. Ancillary powers (information, advances, credit promotion, exhibitions, trade in products, property holding) were construed as furthering that dominant object, and constitutional prohibitions on profit distribution and restricted remuneration negated private profit. Comparative English authorities were distinguished on facts, and analogous precedents supported treating promotion of cottage industries benefiting persons of limited means as charitable; exemption under the statute followed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=184192</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>