<?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 (12) TMI 683 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336038</link>
    <description>The Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), ruling that the appellant, a charitable organization engaging in commercial activities related to rifle shooting, did not qualify for charitable status under the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that entities primarily focused on profit-making, even indirectly related to trade, commerce, or business, cannot claim charitable status. Activities incidentally promoting the main charitable purpose but not constituting commerce or trade themselves were deemed outside the proviso&#039;s scope. The appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law identified.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:14:43 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451502" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 683 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336038</link>
      <description>The Court upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), ruling that the appellant, a charitable organization engaging in commercial activities related to rifle shooting, did not qualify for charitable status under the proviso to Section 2(15) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Court emphasized that entities primarily focused on profit-making, even indirectly related to trade, commerce, or business, cannot claim charitable status. Activities incidentally promoting the main charitable purpose but not constituting commerce or trade themselves were deemed outside the proviso&#039;s scope. The appeal was dismissed, with no substantial question of law identified.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=336038</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>