<?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>2012 (5) TMI 744 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190749</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal against the allowance of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decision, ruling that the demolition of the new residential asset did not constitute a transfer within the meaning of the provision. The appellant met the conditions for claiming exemption when the asset was purchased, and the destruction of the asset did not disqualify them from the exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Jun 2017 17:31:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=459635" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 744 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190749</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal dismissed Revenue&#039;s appeal against the allowance of exemption under section 54F of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2007-08. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)&#039; decision, ruling that the demolition of the new residential asset did not constitute a transfer within the meaning of the provision. The appellant met the conditions for claiming exemption when the asset was purchased, and the destruction of the asset did not disqualify them from the exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 16 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=190749</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>