<?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>2011 (10) TMI 469 - ITAT Pune</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212474</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A)) in a case involving the classification of land as agricultural, validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147, and eligibility for deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the land was not agricultural, validated the reassessment proceedings, and rejected the deduction claim under Section 54B. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the AO and CIT(A) decisions on all issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 Jan 2013 21:18:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=185883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (10) TMI 469 - ITAT Pune</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212474</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the Assessing Officer (AO) and Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A)) in a case involving the classification of land as agricultural, validity of reassessment proceedings under Section 147, and eligibility for deduction under Section 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal found that the land was not agricultural, validated the reassessment proceedings, and rejected the deduction claim under Section 54B. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the AO and CIT(A) decisions on all issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=212474</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>