<?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>2018 (7) TMI 2318 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309469</link>
    <description>Government land allotted at concessional rates for charitable hospital use may carry enforceable public-purpose conditions, including free treatment for economically weaker patients. The Court treated such obligations as consistent with the charitable character of the grant and the public welfare objective of the allotment, and held that an express reservation allowing alteration of terms also supported the condition. It further held that the requirement was regulatory rather than a fresh restriction on the right to carry on business, so no separate legislative enactment was needed. The earlier Social Jurists ruling was treated as applicable to similarly situated institutions and as reinforcing the same public-law obligation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:01:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=725074" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (7) TMI 2318 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309469</link>
      <description>Government land allotted at concessional rates for charitable hospital use may carry enforceable public-purpose conditions, including free treatment for economically weaker patients. The Court treated such obligations as consistent with the charitable character of the grant and the public welfare objective of the allotment, and held that an express reservation allowing alteration of terms also supported the condition. It further held that the requirement was regulatory rather than a fresh restriction on the right to carry on business, so no separate legislative enactment was needed. The earlier Social Jurists ruling was treated as applicable to similarly situated institutions and as reinforcing the same public-law obligation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>