<?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 447 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335802</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions under Section 54F by investing in a new property within the stipulated time, entitling them to the benefit under the section. The Tribunal emphasized that the source of investment for the new property was not mandated by the statute. Relying on supporting judgments, the Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the lower authorities&#039; orders and deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2016 10:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=451065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 447 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335802</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the assessee fulfilled the conditions under Section 54F by investing in a new property within the stipulated time, entitling them to the benefit under the section. The Tribunal emphasized that the source of investment for the new property was not mandated by the statute. Relying on supporting judgments, the Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, setting aside the lower authorities&#039; orders and deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335802</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>