<?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>2001 (8) TMI 1443 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303924</link>
    <description>A charitable hospital or dispensary under Section 110(e) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is one run to relieve the poor, needy and deserving, with treatment available on a fair and non-discriminatory basis and income applied to charitable objects. The existence of some paying patients does not by itself defeat exemption if the dominant object remains free or subsidised treatment for those unable to pay. The HC held that denial based only on the presence of paying patients, without examining the institution&#039;s purpose, beneficiaries, accounts and utilisation of income, was unsustainable. The notice and appellate order were quashed and the exemption claim remanded for fresh decision on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 11:26:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688847" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (8) TMI 1443 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303924</link>
      <description>A charitable hospital or dispensary under Section 110(e) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act is one run to relieve the poor, needy and deserving, with treatment available on a fair and non-discriminatory basis and income applied to charitable objects. The existence of some paying patients does not by itself defeat exemption if the dominant object remains free or subsidised treatment for those unable to pay. The HC held that denial based only on the presence of paying patients, without examining the institution&#039;s purpose, beneficiaries, accounts and utilisation of income, was unsustainable. The notice and appellate order were quashed and the exemption claim remanded for fresh decision on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Benami Property</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303924</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>