<?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>2019 (1) TMI 1066 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373901</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, confirming that the assessee&#039;s activities were charitable and eligible for exemptions under sections 11 and 10(23C). The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)&#039;s orders. The Tribunal also ruled that the proviso to section 2(15) did not apply as the assessee&#039;s dominant objective was charitable, and any commercial activities were incidental.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Jan 2019 18:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=554185" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (1) TMI 1066 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373901</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, confirming that the assessee&#039;s activities were charitable and eligible for exemptions under sections 11 and 10(23C). The appeals by the Revenue were dismissed, and the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)&#039;s orders. The Tribunal also ruled that the proviso to section 2(15) did not apply as the assessee&#039;s dominant objective was charitable, and any commercial activities were incidental.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=373901</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>