<?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>2022 (4) TMI 674 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421008</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the land in question did not qualify as agricultural land under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was therefore subject to capital gains tax. However, the assessee was entitled to a deduction for the cost of acquisition based on a valuation report as of 1 April 1981 for the property acquired through inheritance. All appeals were partly allowed based on these findings.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2022 08:54:10 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=676094" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 674 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421008</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the land in question did not qualify as agricultural land under section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and was therefore subject to capital gains tax. However, the assessee was entitled to a deduction for the cost of acquisition based on a valuation report as of 1 April 1981 for the property acquired through inheritance. All appeals were partly allowed based on these findings.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421008</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>