<?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>2018 (12) TMI 1312 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372543</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act to the assessee. The Tribunal considered the property&#039;s description as residential, the presence of a constructed shed, and the potential for habitation, even without certain amenities. The decision emphasized that the term &quot;residential house&quot; was not strictly defined in the Act, and the property met the requirement for the deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2018 18:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=548991" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 1312 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372543</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the deduction under section 54F of the Income Tax Act to the assessee. The Tribunal considered the property&#039;s description as residential, the presence of a constructed shed, and the potential for habitation, even without certain amenities. The decision emphasized that the term &quot;residential house&quot; was not strictly defined in the Act, and the property met the requirement for the deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 May 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=372543</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>