<?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>2002 (10) TMI 26 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11793</link>
    <description>Money advanced to a sister concern was not treated as application of income for charitable purposes because it remained unspent and outside the assessee&#039;s control throughout the relevant year. Expenditure made only after the close of the accounting year also did not qualify as application in that earlier year, since charitable application must relate to the relevant previous year. The advance further offended the statutory investment restrictions because trust funds were deployed in a related concern outside the prescribed modes, without interest or security, attracting section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5). The questions were answered for the Revenue, and exemption protection was denied on the impugned advance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50806" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 26 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11793</link>
      <description>Money advanced to a sister concern was not treated as application of income for charitable purposes because it remained unspent and outside the assessee&#039;s control throughout the relevant year. Expenditure made only after the close of the accounting year also did not qualify as application in that earlier year, since charitable application must relate to the relevant previous year. The advance further offended the statutory investment restrictions because trust funds were deployed in a related concern outside the prescribed modes, without interest or security, attracting section 13(1)(d) read with section 11(5). The questions were answered for the Revenue, and exemption protection was denied on the impugned advance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11793</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>