<?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>1997 (11) TMI 59 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16547</link>
    <description>A company incorporated as a guarantee company does not become an association of persons merely because it is not registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956; its status depends on the nature of incorporation and the governing company law framework, and the Revenue&#039;s long treatment of it as a guarantee company supported that view. For section 11 exemption, the dominant object of promoting trade and commerce could qualify as an object of general public utility, but exemption also required a legal restriction in the memorandum or bye-laws obliging income to be applied only to charitable purposes and preventing distribution of profits. The charitable-object question was answered against the assessee on the existing findings, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of those governing restrictions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 08 Sep 2009 14:53:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55547" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (11) TMI 59 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16547</link>
      <description>A company incorporated as a guarantee company does not become an association of persons merely because it is not registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956; its status depends on the nature of incorporation and the governing company law framework, and the Revenue&#039;s long treatment of it as a guarantee company supported that view. For section 11 exemption, the dominant object of promoting trade and commerce could qualify as an object of general public utility, but exemption also required a legal restriction in the memorandum or bye-laws obliging income to be applied only to charitable purposes and preventing distribution of profits. The charitable-object question was answered against the assessee on the existing findings, and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration of those governing restrictions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 27 Nov 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16547</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>