<?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 (11) TMI 261 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252944</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to grant exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate was beyond the assessee&#039;s control and emphasized that substantial investment within the stipulated period was sufficient for the exemption. Judicial precedents supporting this interpretation were considered in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 08 Nov 2014 06:17:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=368353" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2014 (11) TMI 261 - ITAT PANAJI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252944</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to grant exemption under Section 54 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A) that the delay in obtaining the occupancy certificate was beyond the assessee&#039;s control and emphasized that substantial investment within the stipulated period was sufficient for the exemption. Judicial precedents supporting this interpretation were considered in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Aug 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=252944</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>