<?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>2021 (9) TMI 503 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412158</link>
    <description>A charitable institution registered under section 12A cannot be denied exemption under section 11 on a mere allegation of commercial activity or violation of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) when the relevant facts are covered by earlier orders in its own case and no distinguishing material is shown. The educational income was found to have been applied to charitable objects, so the exemption claim was sustained. Depreciation on fixed assets was also held allowable in computing charitable income, following settled law that such a claim is not barred merely because the asset cost was treated as application of income. The first appellate order was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=655463" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (9) TMI 503 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412158</link>
      <description>A charitable institution registered under section 12A cannot be denied exemption under section 11 on a mere allegation of commercial activity or violation of section 13(1)(c) read with section 13(3) when the relevant facts are covered by earlier orders in its own case and no distinguishing material is shown. The educational income was found to have been applied to charitable objects, so the exemption claim was sustained. Depreciation on fixed assets was also held allowable in computing charitable income, following settled law that such a claim is not barred merely because the asset cost was treated as application of income. The first appellate order was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=412158</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>