<?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>2017 (5) TMI 850 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343112</link>
    <description>The exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 excludes buildings used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes, and its Explanation states that &quot;charitable purpose&quot; includes relief of the poor and free medical relief. The Court treated that definition as inclusive, not exhaustive, so the Explanation was not confined to those specific instances alone. It also noted that an earlier view appeared to read &quot;includes&quot; as &quot;means&quot;, which could have narrowed the statutory scope. Because of that apparent interpretive error, the correctness of the earlier view was left for reconsideration by a larger Bench, and no final determination was made on the exemption claim.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 May 2017 11:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469086" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (5) TMI 850 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343112</link>
      <description>The exemption under the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 excludes buildings used principally for religious, charitable or educational purposes, and its Explanation states that &quot;charitable purpose&quot; includes relief of the poor and free medical relief. The Court treated that definition as inclusive, not exhaustive, so the Explanation was not confined to those specific instances alone. It also noted that an earlier view appeared to read &quot;includes&quot; as &quot;means&quot;, which could have narrowed the statutory scope. Because of that apparent interpretive error, the correctness of the earlier view was left for reconsideration by a larger Bench, and no final determination was made on the exemption claim.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=343112</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>