<?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>2024 (7) TMI 1497 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756277</link>
    <description>The Punjab and Haryana HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision allowing the appeal of a Board constituted under Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986, which had its registration cancelled. The Board&#039;s activities included agricultural production augmentation, road development, dispensary establishment, water supply, sanitation, and construction of godowns and rest houses. ITAT found these activities constituted general public utility under Section 2(20), qualifying for charitable purpose exemption under Section 11. The Commissioner&#039;s denial of registration was unjustified. HC found no error in ITAT&#039;s judgment and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Jul 2024 16:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=762330" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 1497 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756277</link>
      <description>The Punjab and Haryana HC upheld ITAT&#039;s decision allowing the appeal of a Board constituted under Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986, which had its registration cancelled. The Board&#039;s activities included agricultural production augmentation, road development, dispensary establishment, water supply, sanitation, and construction of godowns and rest houses. ITAT found these activities constituted general public utility under Section 2(20), qualifying for charitable purpose exemption under Section 11. The Commissioner&#039;s denial of registration was unjustified. HC found no error in ITAT&#039;s judgment and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756277</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>