<?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>Challenge to Denial of Exemption: Subsidiary Creation Followed SEBI Directions, Contradicting Revenue&#039;s Claims on Membership Limits.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36318</link>
    <description>Denying exemption u/s 11 &amp; 12 - It is quite evident that the floating of subsidiary company was in tune with SEBI directions and contradicts the stand of the revenue that the sub-broker membership of the subsidiary was open to select few and not to public at large and the benefit to select few was extended by the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:51:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489446" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Challenge to Denial of Exemption: Subsidiary Creation Followed SEBI Directions, Contradicting Revenue&#039;s Claims on Membership Limits.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36318</link>
      <description>Denying exemption u/s 11 &amp; 12 - It is quite evident that the floating of subsidiary company was in tune with SEBI directions and contradicts the stand of the revenue that the sub-broker membership of the subsidiary was open to select few and not to public at large and the benefit to select few was extended by the assessee.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Sep 2017 09:51:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=36318</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>