<?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>2021 (5) TMI 337 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407458</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of the possession date over the payment date for determining the purchase of property. Legal precedents and the factual circumstances supported the appellant&#039;s argument, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirming the importance of possession date in establishing eligibility for the deduction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 May 2021 08:28:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644011" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 337 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407458</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing the significance of the possession date over the payment date for determining the purchase of property. Legal precedents and the factual circumstances supported the appellant&#039;s argument, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and affirming the importance of possession date in establishing eligibility for the deduction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407458</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>