<?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>1995 (3) TMI 154 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62578</link>
    <description>Capital gains exemptions under sections 53 and 54 are linked to the gain computed under section 48(1)(a), so the further deduction under section 48(2) is not superimposed before working out those exemptions. Section 54 relief is available where the capital gain is substantially utilised for purchase or construction of a residential house and the balance is deposited in the notified account; completion of construction within three years is not a strict condition precedent. The same capital gain cannot be used to claim simultaneous exemption for two residential properties. Documentary evidence supported the share transactions, so the short-term capital loss could not be disallowed as bogus on suspicion alone.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:20:32 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101024" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (3) TMI 154 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62578</link>
      <description>Capital gains exemptions under sections 53 and 54 are linked to the gain computed under section 48(1)(a), so the further deduction under section 48(2) is not superimposed before working out those exemptions. Section 54 relief is available where the capital gain is substantially utilised for purchase or construction of a residential house and the balance is deposited in the notified account; completion of construction within three years is not a strict condition precedent. The same capital gain cannot be used to claim simultaneous exemption for two residential properties. Documentary evidence supported the share transactions, so the short-term capital loss could not be disallowed as bogus on suspicion alone.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Mar 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62578</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>