<?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>2018 (7) TMI 137 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362829</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court held that the appellant is not a local authority under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The notification under Article 243Q(1) does not grant the appellant the status of a Municipality. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to tax exemption, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2022 15:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525632" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 137 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362829</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court held that the appellant is not a local authority under Section 10(20) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002. The notification under Article 243Q(1) does not grant the appellant the status of a Municipality. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to tax exemption, and the appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362829</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>