<?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>2012 (3) TMI 257 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211459</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s decision to restrict the deduction under Section 54EC to Rs. 50,00,000, reversing the CIT(A)&#039;s order. It held that the investment limit of Rs. 50,00,000 applies to any financial year, preventing the assessee from claiming a higher deduction by splitting the investment into two financial years. The Tribunal emphasized that such an interpretation would lead to inconsistencies and unfair advantages for certain taxpayers, ultimately allowing the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:24:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=184877" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 257 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211459</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the Assessing Officer&#039;s decision to restrict the deduction under Section 54EC to Rs. 50,00,000, reversing the CIT(A)&#039;s order. It held that the investment limit of Rs. 50,00,000 applies to any financial year, preventing the assessee from claiming a higher deduction by splitting the investment into two financial years. The Tribunal emphasized that such an interpretation would lead to inconsistencies and unfair advantages for certain taxpayers, ultimately allowing the revenue&#039;s appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=211459</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>