<?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>1994 (10) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19268</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, holding that the conditions of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act were not met with only 62 days of use of the property. The court emphasized the need for continuous use for residence in the two years preceding the transfer, rejecting the argument that intermittent use suffices. The decision favored the Revenue, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 08 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:24:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=58267" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (10) TMI 17 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19268</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, holding that the conditions of Section 54 of the Income-tax Act were not met with only 62 days of use of the property. The court emphasized the need for continuous use for residence in the two years preceding the transfer, rejecting the argument that intermittent use suffices. The decision favored the Revenue, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 08 Oct 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=19268</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>