<?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>1988 (6) TMI 86 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69141</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that Hindu undivided families (HUFs) can claim the benefit of excluding personal effects from capital gains-tax under section 2(14)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The movable assets sold were considered personal effects of the HUFs as they were regularly used by the members as household items, meeting the criteria set by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and ruled in favor of the assessees, allowing the appeals.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 17:12:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107513" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (6) TMI 86 - ITAT MADRAS-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69141</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that Hindu undivided families (HUFs) can claim the benefit of excluding personal effects from capital gains-tax under section 2(14)(ii) of the Income-tax Act. The movable assets sold were considered personal effects of the HUFs as they were regularly used by the members as household items, meeting the criteria set by the Supreme Court. The Tribunal reversed the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and ruled in favor of the assessees, allowing the appeals.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jun 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69141</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>