<?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 (7) TMI 1257 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278268</link>
    <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, directing a re-examination of reinvestment details for accurate long term capital gains computation. It clarified the due date for claiming deductions under section 54F as per section 139(4) and emphasized the separate consideration of actual sale proceeds for reinvestment under section 54F, disregarding section 50C&#039;s deemed value. The decision highlighted the need for independent interpretation of &#039;full value of consideration&#039; under section 54F.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Jan 2019 07:51:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=554119" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 1257 - ITAT KOLKATA</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278268</link>
      <description>The Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, directing a re-examination of reinvestment details for accurate long term capital gains computation. It clarified the due date for claiming deductions under section 54F as per section 139(4) and emphasized the separate consideration of actual sale proceeds for reinvestment under section 54F, disregarding section 50C&#039;s deemed value. The decision highlighted the need for independent interpretation of &#039;full value of consideration&#039; under section 54F.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=278268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>