TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (3) TMI 353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HANDRAN NArn J. - The appellant is a Government of Kerala promoted company registered under section 25 of the Companies Act for taking care of the interest of the non-resident Keralites. Registration of the company as a charitable institution was applied for under section 12AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on April 12, 2004. On rejection of the application on March 7, 2005, appeal was filed befor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unsel for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the Income-tax Department. 3. On going through the orders of the Tribunal and that of the Commissioner of Income-tax, we do not think any of these authorities has considered the matter properly. The only question to be considered is whether the appellant is an institution formed for advancement of any object of general public utility, whi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce of various types from Government agencies. Further, a majority of the people employed are in the Middle-East countries which do not promote settlement or acquisition of citizenship there. Therefore a Governmental agency promoted by the Government to protect the interests of non-resident Keralites who are out of Kerala and India is certainly an object of general public utility. The findings of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for unnecessary travel and extravaganza, then the same will reflect upon the true purpose of the organisation. The question of limitation raised by the appellant is neither tenable nor would advance the case of the appellant because in the first round, the Tribunal did not accept the limitation, but set aside the order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Secondly by getting a d....