<?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>2013 (5) TMI 837 - ITAT PUNE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174704</link>
    <description>Section 54B relief was supported where land revenue records showed agricultural classification and crop entries for the two years before transfer, and the Revenue failed to rebut those entries with credible contrary material. Section 54F relief was also available because &quot;a residential house&quot; is not confined to a single self-contained unit; multiple residential units may qualify where the claim is limited to the residential portion and excludes commercial area. On the facts stated, unchallenged land records and supporting agricultural income evidence sustained the agricultural-use claim, while the presence of multiple dwelling units did not by itself defeat exemption for the residential construction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 Apr 2017 11:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2013 (5) TMI 837 - ITAT PUNE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174704</link>
      <description>Section 54B relief was supported where land revenue records showed agricultural classification and crop entries for the two years before transfer, and the Revenue failed to rebut those entries with credible contrary material. Section 54F relief was also available because &quot;a residential house&quot; is not confined to a single self-contained unit; multiple residential units may qualify where the claim is limited to the residential portion and excludes commercial area. On the facts stated, unchallenged land records and supporting agricultural income evidence sustained the agricultural-use claim, while the presence of multiple dwelling units did not by itself defeat exemption for the residential construction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2013 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174704</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>