<?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 (8) TMI 960 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426721</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the assessee&#039;s appeals, affirming that the building was constructed for commercial purposes and thus not eligible for exemption under Section 54F. The exemption under Section 54B was upheld, and the earlier decision regarding agricultural income was maintained. Both appeals were dismissed, and the findings were applicable to the co-owner&#039;s case as well.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Aug 2022 08:48:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688678" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 960 - ITAT HYDERABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426721</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the assessee&#039;s appeals, affirming that the building was constructed for commercial purposes and thus not eligible for exemption under Section 54F. The exemption under Section 54B was upheld, and the earlier decision regarding agricultural income was maintained. Both appeals were dismissed, and the findings were applicable to the co-owner&#039;s case as well.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426721</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>