<?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>1990 (10) TMI 32 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22590</link>
    <description>The appellate court upheld the decision that the second proviso to Section 54E(1) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively. The date of transfer for Section 54E is the date of compensation receipt, allowing investments within six months. The investments in specified securities made by the assessee qualified for benefits under Section 54E. The writ appeal was dismissed, directing the Income-tax Officer to reassess the benefits for the assessee based on these findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:05:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 32 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22590</link>
      <description>The appellate court upheld the decision that the second proviso to Section 54E(1) is clarificatory and applies retrospectively. The date of transfer for Section 54E is the date of compensation receipt, allowing investments within six months. The investments in specified securities made by the assessee qualified for benefits under Section 54E. The writ appeal was dismissed, directing the Income-tax Officer to reassess the benefits for the assessee based on these findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22590</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>