<?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>1980 (7) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35959</link>
    <description>The court ruled against the Radhaswami Satsang, denying its entitlement to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the properties and income were not held under a legal obligation solely for religious purposes, even in the absence of a Sant Satguru. Consequently, the income derived by the Radhaswami Satsang is not exempt from tax, as the central council was found to hold the properties not only for religious purposes but also for the benefit of a future Sant Satguru.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:51:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74505" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (7) TMI 40 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35959</link>
      <description>The court ruled against the Radhaswami Satsang, denying its entitlement to exemption under sections 11 and 12 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the properties and income were not held under a legal obligation solely for religious purposes, even in the absence of a Sant Satguru. Consequently, the income derived by the Radhaswami Satsang is not exempt from tax, as the central council was found to hold the properties not only for religious purposes but also for the benefit of a future Sant Satguru.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35959</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>