<?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 (8) TMI 461 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410883</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore partially allowed the appeal by the assessee, addressing issues related to the denial of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s investment in the construction of a new residential house qualified for the exemption under Section 54F, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument regarding the timing of deposit in the capital gain account scheme. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that investment in a residential house in the name of the spouse did not disqualify the appellant from claiming the deduction. The Tribunal upheld the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act as mandatory and consequential.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 12 Aug 2021 08:40:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=652453" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (8) TMI 461 - ITAT BANGALORE</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410883</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Bangalore partially allowed the appeal by the assessee, addressing issues related to the denial of deduction under Section 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that the appellant&#039;s investment in the construction of a new residential house qualified for the exemption under Section 54F, rejecting the Revenue&#039;s argument regarding the timing of deposit in the capital gain account scheme. Additionally, the Tribunal clarified that investment in a residential house in the name of the spouse did not disqualify the appellant from claiming the deduction. The Tribunal upheld the charging of interest under sections 234A and 234B of the Act as mandatory and consequential.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 06 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=410883</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>