<?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>1974 (6) TMI 26 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39847</link>
    <description>Section 11 continued to protect a charitable trust&#039;s exemption where the accumulated income was intended for investment in the prescribed manner and a minor shortfall occurred for reasons beyond the trust&#039;s control after remittance of the full amount for Government securities. The provision was read liberally, so a narrow construction that would deny all exemption for a small investment deficiency was rejected as inconsistent with the purpose of section 11(2). Where two reasonable interpretations of a taxing provision are available, the interpretation favourable to the taxpayer was preferred. The trust remained entitled to exemption, and the shortfall did not defeat relief.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 16:30:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=78393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (6) TMI 26 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39847</link>
      <description>Section 11 continued to protect a charitable trust&#039;s exemption where the accumulated income was intended for investment in the prescribed manner and a minor shortfall occurred for reasons beyond the trust&#039;s control after remittance of the full amount for Government securities. The provision was read liberally, so a narrow construction that would deny all exemption for a small investment deficiency was rejected as inconsistent with the purpose of section 11(2). Where two reasonable interpretations of a taxing provision are available, the interpretation favourable to the taxpayer was preferred. The trust remained entitled to exemption, and the shortfall did not defeat relief.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=39847</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>