https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39480 Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Form No. 10 were held ultra vires because the rule-making power under section 295 could not add a four-month time limit for investing accumulated charitable income when section 11(2) itself did not prescribe that restriction. The prescribed form could regulate the manner of notice and investment in approved securities, but it could not impose a substantive condition that curtailed the availability of exemption without express or necessary legislative authority. Paragraph 4 also failed because it was conditional on compliance with paragraph 2. The impugned time condition was therefore invalid, and the statutory exemption could not be defeated by the form. en-us Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 16 Apr 2010 16:49:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39480 Paragraphs 2 and 4 of Form No. 10 were held ultra vires because the rule-making power under section 295 could not add a four-month time limit for investing accumulated charitable income when section 11(2) itself did not prescribe that restriction. The prescribed form could regulate the manner of notice and investment in approved securities, but it could not impose a substantive condition that curtailed the availability of exemption without express or necessary legislative authority. Paragraph 4 also failed because it was conditional on compliance with paragraph 2. The impugned time condition was therefore invalid, and the statutory exemption could not be defeated by the form. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 14 Mar 1975 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39480