<?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>2002 (5) TMI 854 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179581</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, directing the AO to grant the deduction under section 54F and to re-determine the exemption and interest accordingly. The validity of the assessment order and the additional ground not pressed were rejected. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F, emphasizing that the provision defining the cost of the new asset should be extended for all purposes under the head &#039;capital gain&#039; unless there is a contrary provision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Mar 2016 16:05:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=418976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (5) TMI 854 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179581</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, directing the AO to grant the deduction under section 54F and to re-determine the exemption and interest accordingly. The validity of the assessment order and the additional ground not pressed were rejected. The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 54F, emphasizing that the provision defining the cost of the new asset should be extended for all purposes under the head &#039;capital gain&#039; unless there is a contrary provision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 May 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=179581</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>