<?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>2020 (1) TMI 1149 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391536</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision to delete additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding interest income and other incomes of the assessee trust. It held that these incomes were incidental to the charitable activities of the trust and not in the nature of trade or business. The Court affirmed that the trust&#039;s dominant object was charitable, and incidental surpluses did not change this character. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Mar 2020 12:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=601973" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (1) TMI 1149 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391536</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the ITAT&#039;s decision to delete additions made by the Assessing Officer regarding interest income and other incomes of the assessee trust. It held that these incomes were incidental to the charitable activities of the trust and not in the nature of trade or business. The Court affirmed that the trust&#039;s dominant object was charitable, and incidental surpluses did not change this character. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391536</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>