<?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 (5) TMI 896 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187010</link>
    <description>Compulsory market fee paid to the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board was treated as application of income for charitable purposes under section 11(1), following earlier Tribunal views that such statutory contribution is not a diversion for the committee&#039;s own benefit. Depreciation on fixed assets remained deductible even where the asset cost had already been treated as application of income, but the matter was remitted for limited verification of the additions to fixed assets and the applicable rate. Exemption under section 11(2) could not be denied merely because the trustee resolution was not filed with Form No. 10, since the resolution was later produced and supported the accumulation claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Oct 2016 15:33:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443972" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (5) TMI 896 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187010</link>
      <description>Compulsory market fee paid to the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board was treated as application of income for charitable purposes under section 11(1), following earlier Tribunal views that such statutory contribution is not a diversion for the committee&#039;s own benefit. Depreciation on fixed assets remained deductible even where the asset cost had already been treated as application of income, but the matter was remitted for limited verification of the additions to fixed assets and the applicable rate. Exemption under section 11(2) could not be denied merely because the trustee resolution was not filed with Form No. 10, since the resolution was later produced and supported the accumulation claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187010</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>