<?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>2017 (2) TMI 1534 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307454</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Department&#039;s appeal. It concluded that the assessee&#039;s activities were charitable, focusing on data protection and information security, which are crucial in the modern technological era. The Tribunal emphasized that the predominant objective of the assessee was charitable, and any incidental surplus did not affect its charitable status. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, which mandates non-profit operations. The appeal of the Department was dismissed, and the CIT(A)&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Apr 2023 00:17:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=710740" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (2) TMI 1534 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307454</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the Department&#039;s appeal. It concluded that the assessee&#039;s activities were charitable, focusing on data protection and information security, which are crucial in the modern technological era. The Tribunal emphasized that the predominant objective of the assessee was charitable, and any incidental surplus did not affect its charitable status. The Tribunal also noted that the assessee was registered under section 25 of the Companies Act, which mandates non-profit operations. The appeal of the Department was dismissed, and the CIT(A)&#039;s order was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Feb 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307454</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>