<?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 (7) TMI 553 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409711</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, granting the exemption under Section 54F. It concluded that the property was residential at the time of purchase, the assessee did not own more than one residential property, and the construction expenditure was validly incurred. The additional evidence was admitted, and the lower authorities&#039; findings were overturned.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2021 08:02:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=649699" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (7) TMI 553 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409711</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, granting the exemption under Section 54F. It concluded that the property was residential at the time of purchase, the assessee did not own more than one residential property, and the construction expenditure was validly incurred. The additional evidence was admitted, and the lower authorities&#039; findings were overturned.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409711</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>