<?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>2014 (6) TMI 40 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248136</link>
    <description>The Tribunal determined that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act as he did not own more than one residential house at the time of the original asset transfer. The investment in a new residential house was deemed compliant with Section 54F requirements, entitling the assessee to the exemption for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the appeal was successful, and the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition was entirely removed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2014 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=356793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (6) TMI 40 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248136</link>
      <description>The Tribunal determined that the assessee qualified for exemption under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act as he did not own more than one residential house at the time of the original asset transfer. The investment in a new residential house was deemed compliant with Section 54F requirements, entitling the assessee to the exemption for long-term capital gains. Consequently, the appeal was successful, and the Assessing Officer&#039;s addition was entirely removed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=248136</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>