<?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>2001 (5) TMI 967 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272375</link>
    <description>Long-term leasing of substantial trust property under the Bombay Public Trusts Act requires the Charity Commissioner to be satisfied that the arrangement best serves the trust&#039;s charitable object. Where the lease covers a major part of the land, the property yields little income, and the proposed terms do not clearly show how the lessee will use it, the material must justify why the permission is in the trust&#039;s interests. The Commissioner should also consider whether better proposals are available and whether conditions can be imposed to protect the trust. On that basis, the earlier permission could not stand as granted and reconsideration was required.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 May 2018 10:14:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=518624" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (5) TMI 967 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272375</link>
      <description>Long-term leasing of substantial trust property under the Bombay Public Trusts Act requires the Charity Commissioner to be satisfied that the arrangement best serves the trust&#039;s charitable object. Where the lease covers a major part of the land, the property yields little income, and the proposed terms do not clearly show how the lessee will use it, the material must justify why the permission is in the trust&#039;s interests. The Commissioner should also consider whether better proposals are available and whether conditions can be imposed to protect the trust. On that basis, the earlier permission could not stand as granted and reconsideration was required.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=272375</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>