<?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>2012 (3) TMI 643 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284926</link>
    <description>The appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07 was dismissed on 07.03.2012. The CIT(A) upheld the contention that the land sold was not a capital asset as per the Act&#039;s provisions, based on the argument that the new asset did not fall within the specified limits. Consequently, the addition of &amp;amp;8377;18,03,522/- as short term capital gains was deleted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Dec 2019 10:32:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=597473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 643 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284926</link>
      <description>The appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Ludhiana u/s 250(6) of the Income-tax Act for Assessment Year 2006-07 was dismissed on 07.03.2012. The CIT(A) upheld the contention that the land sold was not a capital asset as per the Act&#039;s provisions, based on the argument that the new asset did not fall within the specified limits. Consequently, the addition of &amp;amp;8377;18,03,522/- as short term capital gains was deleted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284926</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>