<?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>2016 (12) TMI 303 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335658</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, overturning the order of the ld. CIT(A) and granting the rebate under section 88E of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the rebate should be based on income from taxable security transactions, even if there was speculation loss involved. Citing relevant precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for the rebate, highlighting the importance of considering the clear language of the provision in determining eligibility.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2016 16:26:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450751" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 303 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335658</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appellant&#039;s appeal, overturning the order of the ld. CIT(A) and granting the rebate under section 88E of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the rebate should be based on income from taxable security transactions, even if there was speculation loss involved. Citing relevant precedents and legal interpretations, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was eligible for the rebate, highlighting the importance of considering the clear language of the provision in determining eligibility.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>