<?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>2011 (8) TMI 1349 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296712</link>
    <description>Eligibility under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 must be assessed by reference to the individual landholding and income of the actual cultivating tenants, not by treating a registered society as a single composite unit. A society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a separate juristic person for this purpose, so certificates showing the members&#039; individual holdings remain relevant. Prior final findings recognizing the petitioner as successor to the original lessee also meant the claim could not be rejected merely for want of a valid lease. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration of the members&#039; separate eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2021 13:25:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651577" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1349 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296712</link>
      <description>Eligibility under Section 82(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 must be assessed by reference to the individual landholding and income of the actual cultivating tenants, not by treating a registered society as a single composite unit. A society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is not a separate juristic person for this purpose, so certificates showing the members&#039; individual holdings remain relevant. Prior final findings recognizing the petitioner as successor to the original lessee also meant the claim could not be rejected merely for want of a valid lease. The matter was therefore remitted for fresh consideration of the members&#039; separate eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296712</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>