<?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>1967 (9) TMI 151 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199063</link>
    <description>A trust could obtain exemption under section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act only if the land was property of a public religious or charitable trust, the trust was registered or deemed registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the land&#039;s entire income accrued to the trust. The disputed requirement was deemed registration. Section 28 was construed to apply only to trusts brought within the territorial and functional scope of the Bombay Act after reorganisation, not to a trust situated and administered outside Maharashtra merely because it owned land there. The trust was therefore not deemed registered and the exemption claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 13:12:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509594" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (9) TMI 151 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199063</link>
      <description>A trust could obtain exemption under section 88B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act only if the land was property of a public religious or charitable trust, the trust was registered or deemed registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, and the land&#039;s entire income accrued to the trust. The disputed requirement was deemed registration. Section 28 was construed to apply only to trusts brought within the territorial and functional scope of the Bombay Act after reorganisation, not to a trust situated and administered outside Maharashtra merely because it owned land there. The trust was therefore not deemed registered and the exemption claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Sep 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>