<?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>2008 (2) TMI 467 - ITAT DELHI-I</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65568</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act require all conditions to be cumulatively satisfied for disallowing a capital loss. The assessee&#039;s transactions did not meet all these conditions, and thus, the capital loss on mutual fund units was not disallowed. Consequently, the exemption under section 10(34) claimed by the assessee was upheld as valid.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Jan 2024 10:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104006" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (2) TMI 467 - ITAT DELHI-I</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65568</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision that the provisions of section 94(7) of the Income-tax Act require all conditions to be cumulatively satisfied for disallowing a capital loss. The assessee&#039;s transactions did not meet all these conditions, and thus, the capital loss on mutual fund units was not disallowed. Consequently, the exemption under section 10(34) claimed by the assessee was upheld as valid.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65568</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>