<?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 (10) TMI 305 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71996</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value reported by the DVO. However, the disallowance of the exemption claim under section 54B was upheld as the late uncle of the assessee did not qualify as a &quot;parent&quot; under the relevant provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2012 16:37:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=110292" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (10) TMI 305 - ITAT AMRITSAR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71996</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the fair market value reported by the DVO. However, the disallowance of the exemption claim under section 54B was upheld as the late uncle of the assessee did not qualify as a &quot;parent&quot; under the relevant provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=71996</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>