<?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>2016 (12) TMI 1920 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462540</link>
    <description>Advancing loans to poor women in villages was characterised as relief of the poor under the first limb of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the activity directly answered that charitable description. Once so classified, it could not be treated as advancement of any other object of general public utility for the purpose of denying charitable status. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2025 16:27:21 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=832467" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 1920 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462540</link>
      <description>Advancing loans to poor women in villages was characterised as relief of the poor under the first limb of Section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, because the activity directly answered that charitable description. Once so classified, it could not be treated as advancement of any other object of general public utility for the purpose of denying charitable status. The Revenue&#039;s challenge therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462540</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>