<?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>2005 (2) TMI 466 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68199</link>
    <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete capital gains amounts in two cases involving appellants who initially declared the gains but later revised their returns beyond the time limit. The CIT(A) found that the capital gains were actually investments made by another individual, leading to double taxation. The ITAT agreed with this finding, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeals and supporting the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2011 15:56:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=106601" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (2) TMI 466 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68199</link>
      <description>The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete capital gains amounts in two cases involving appellants who initially declared the gains but later revised their returns beyond the time limit. The CIT(A) found that the capital gains were actually investments made by another individual, leading to double taxation. The ITAT agreed with this finding, dismissing the Revenue&#039;s appeals and supporting the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=68199</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>