<?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>2019 (7) TMI 1610 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287710</link>
    <description>The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under section 54F for both properties purchased. The tribunal emphasized the applicability of the amended provisions of section 54F and the proviso (a)(ii) to section 54F(1) in disallowing the deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 28 Apr 2020 22:54:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=611499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2019 (7) TMI 1610 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287710</link>
      <description>The tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal and confirming that the assessee was not eligible for the deduction under section 54F for both properties purchased. The tribunal emphasized the applicability of the amended provisions of section 54F and the proviso (a)(ii) to section 54F(1) in disallowing the deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 25 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>