<?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 1018 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426779</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the Assessing Officer to permit the full construction cost of Rs.74.09 Lacs paid to the contractor, the direct construction cost of Rs.40.88 Lacs incurred by the assessee, and to exclude the sale consideration of the Kolathur property from the proportionate deduction calculation under Section 54/54F. The AO was instructed to re-compute the assessee&#039;s income based on these directives.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2022 08:13:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=688793" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (8) TMI 1018 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426779</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, directing the Assessing Officer to permit the full construction cost of Rs.74.09 Lacs paid to the contractor, the direct construction cost of Rs.40.88 Lacs incurred by the assessee, and to exclude the sale consideration of the Kolathur property from the proportionate deduction calculation under Section 54/54F. The AO was instructed to re-compute the assessee&#039;s income based on these directives.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 17 Aug 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=426779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>