<?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>2000 (9) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14769</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, a Hindu undivided family, in a case concerning the interpretation of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that prior to the 1987 amendment, the provision only applied to individuals, not HUFs. Emphasizing the legislative intent and wording of the provision, the court concluded that the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the deduction for the HUF was incorrect. Therefore, the court sided with the Revenue, denying the deduction claimed by the HUF under section 54.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:27:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=53769" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (9) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14769</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, a Hindu undivided family, in a case concerning the interpretation of section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that prior to the 1987 amendment, the provision only applied to individuals, not HUFs. Emphasizing the legislative intent and wording of the provision, the court concluded that the Tribunal&#039;s decision to allow the deduction for the HUF was incorrect. Therefore, the court sided with the Revenue, denying the deduction claimed by the HUF under section 54.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14769</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>