<?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>2017 (4) TMI 397 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341427</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directing reassessment by the Assessing Officer. The correct classification of capital gains was emphasized, using the date of allotment to determine the holding period for the sale of residential premises. The Tribunal&#039;s decision favored the assessee, allowing exemption under Section 54 and was pronounced on 31st March 2017.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 06 Apr 2017 14:11:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=465260" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (4) TMI 397 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341427</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)&#039;s order and directing reassessment by the Assessing Officer. The correct classification of capital gains was emphasized, using the date of allotment to determine the holding period for the sale of residential premises. The Tribunal&#039;s decision favored the assessee, allowing exemption under Section 54 and was pronounced on 31st March 2017.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 31 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341427</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>