<?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 (6) TMI 429 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381352</link>
    <description>A statutory development authority&#039;s development, allotment and sale of sites and flats did not fall within the proviso to section 2(15) because the dominant purpose remained advancement of general public utility. The Tribunal applied the test of whether the activity was undertaken with a profit motive, holding that incidental surplus from layouts, infrastructure and allied facilities did not by itself amount to trade, commerce or business. Its statutory objects, earlier charitable recognition and allotment to economically weaker sections supported the conclusion that the activity was not profit-making. The proviso to section 2(15) therefore did not apply, and exemption under section 11 was available.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Aug 2019 11:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=574599" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (6) TMI 429 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381352</link>
      <description>A statutory development authority&#039;s development, allotment and sale of sites and flats did not fall within the proviso to section 2(15) because the dominant purpose remained advancement of general public utility. The Tribunal applied the test of whether the activity was undertaken with a profit motive, holding that incidental surplus from layouts, infrastructure and allied facilities did not by itself amount to trade, commerce or business. Its statutory objects, earlier charitable recognition and allotment to economically weaker sections supported the conclusion that the activity was not profit-making. The proviso to section 2(15) therefore did not apply, and exemption under section 11 was available.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=381352</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>