<?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>2015 (5) TMI 986 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176988</link>
    <description>Exemption under section 54EC was treated as available where specified bonds were not available within the statutory six-month period and the assessee invested within a reasonable time after they became available. The addition for accrued fixed-deposit interest was deleted because the assessee consistently followed the adopted accounting method and no illegality in that treatment was shown. The addition for notional rent was also deleted as the estimate had no supporting basis. By contrast, the addition based on the annual value of a let-out property was sustained because the assessee failed to furnish reliable particulars to justify a lower value under house-property provisions.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 01 Jan 2016 10:51:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=411437" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (5) TMI 986 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176988</link>
      <description>Exemption under section 54EC was treated as available where specified bonds were not available within the statutory six-month period and the assessee invested within a reasonable time after they became available. The addition for accrued fixed-deposit interest was deleted because the assessee consistently followed the adopted accounting method and no illegality in that treatment was shown. The addition for notional rent was also deleted as the estimate had no supporting basis. By contrast, the addition based on the annual value of a let-out property was sustained because the assessee failed to furnish reliable particulars to justify a lower value under house-property provisions.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=176988</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>