<?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 (11) TMI 1393 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762407</link>
    <description>The Telangana HC held that a charitable institution&#039;s investment in joint venture companies as a promoter violated Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, as these were neither government companies nor corporations established under Central or Provincial Acts. The investment was made from previous year&#039;s profits and continued beyond the cut-off date of 30.11.1983. While the assessee was denied exemption under Section 11, the court clarified that only income from the violative investment, not the entire income, is liable to tax. The court followed precedents from Bombay HC and Delhi HC in limiting taxation to income specifically arising from the prohibited investment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Nov 2024 13:20:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=779937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (11) TMI 1393 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762407</link>
      <description>The Telangana HC held that a charitable institution&#039;s investment in joint venture companies as a promoter violated Section 13(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, as these were neither government companies nor corporations established under Central or Provincial Acts. The investment was made from previous year&#039;s profits and continued beyond the cut-off date of 30.11.1983. While the assessee was denied exemption under Section 11, the court clarified that only income from the violative investment, not the entire income, is liable to tax. The court followed precedents from Bombay HC and Delhi HC in limiting taxation to income specifically arising from the prohibited investment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=762407</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>