<?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>1985 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61771</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the reassessment for the appellant&#039;s jointly owned property, determining the self-occupied and let-out portions separately. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s claim for exemption under section 23(3) for the self-occupied portion, stating it should have been raised during the original assessment. Additionally, the appellant&#039;s claim for vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) for the ground floor was denied, as the Tribunal considered the ground floor and first floor as separate house properties, following legal precedents. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the reassessment and rejecting the appellant&#039;s claims for exemption and vacancy allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Jan 2011 18:06:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100217" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (4) TMI 109 - ITAT COCHIN</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61771</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal upheld the reassessment for the appellant&#039;s jointly owned property, determining the self-occupied and let-out portions separately. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant&#039;s claim for exemption under section 23(3) for the self-occupied portion, stating it should have been raised during the original assessment. Additionally, the appellant&#039;s claim for vacancy allowance under section 24(1)(ix) for the ground floor was denied, as the Tribunal considered the ground floor and first floor as separate house properties, following legal precedents. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the reassessment and rejecting the appellant&#039;s claims for exemption and vacancy allowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61771</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>