<?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>2020 (9) TMI 96 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397977</link>
    <description>The Court held that the amendment to Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, effective from 01.04.2015, was prospective in nature. As the investment in a residential house in the USA was made before this date, the requirement of investment in a residential house in India did not apply. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the exemption under Section 54F did not extend to the investment made in the USA before the effective date of the amendment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2020 10:32:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=621322" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (9) TMI 96 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397977</link>
      <description>The Court held that the amendment to Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, effective from 01.04.2015, was prospective in nature. As the investment in a residential house in the USA was made before this date, the requirement of investment in a residential house in India did not apply. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the exemption under Section 54F did not extend to the investment made in the USA before the effective date of the amendment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397977</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>