<?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>2003 (3) TMI 49 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11649</link>
    <description>A charitable society registered under s.12A claimed that donations/grants were &quot;utilised&quot; by advancing interest-free amounts to beneficiaries, but the tax authorities found diversion of trust funds for the personal benefit of persons covered by s.13(3), attracting s.13(1)(c)(ii) read with ss.13(2)(b) and 13(3)(d). On facts, the trustees were held to have personal knowledge and to have deliberately misutilised funds, including routing payments through an association controlled by related persons and advancing amounts to facilitate purchase of property in an individual capacity; the &quot;fraud&quot; explanation was rejected. Treating these as pure findings of fact not open to interference under s.260A, the HC dismissed the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 27 Dec 2025 18:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50662" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (3) TMI 49 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11649</link>
      <description>A charitable society registered under s.12A claimed that donations/grants were &quot;utilised&quot; by advancing interest-free amounts to beneficiaries, but the tax authorities found diversion of trust funds for the personal benefit of persons covered by s.13(3), attracting s.13(1)(c)(ii) read with ss.13(2)(b) and 13(3)(d). On facts, the trustees were held to have personal knowledge and to have deliberately misutilised funds, including routing payments through an association controlled by related persons and advancing amounts to facilitate purchase of property in an individual capacity; the &quot;fraud&quot; explanation was rejected. Treating these as pure findings of fact not open to interference under s.260A, the HC dismissed the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 28 Mar 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11649</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>