<?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 (2) TMI 110 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69973</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the brothers, upholding their exemption of capital gains under section 54 for the purchase of &#039;Hawarden Bungalow&#039;. The Tribunal determined that the brothers met the ownership criteria upon the dissolution of the firm, considering the period of ownership by the firm. They also found that the brothers had used the property for residential purposes for over two years before the transfer, satisfying the requirements of section 54. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner&#039;s objections and clarified the variance between sections 54 and 54E for exemption criteria, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and restoring the Income Tax Officer&#039;s assessments.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 110 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69973</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the brothers, upholding their exemption of capital gains under section 54 for the purchase of &#039;Hawarden Bungalow&#039;. The Tribunal determined that the brothers met the ownership criteria upon the dissolution of the firm, considering the period of ownership by the firm. They also found that the brothers had used the property for residential purposes for over two years before the transfer, satisfying the requirements of section 54. The Tribunal disagreed with the Commissioner&#039;s objections and clarified the variance between sections 54 and 54E for exemption criteria, setting aside the Commissioner&#039;s order and restoring the Income Tax Officer&#039;s assessments.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>