<?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 (11) TMI 196 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429772</link>
    <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,70,95,075/- under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedural delay in depositing the amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme should not overshadow the substantial compliance with the requirement to invest in a new residential house within the specified timeframe as mandated by Section 54(1).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2022 12:52:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=694825" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (11) TMI 196 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429772</link>
      <description>The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal, affirming the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 5,70,95,075/- under Section 54 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal emphasized that the procedural delay in depositing the amount in the Capital Gains Account Scheme should not overshadow the substantial compliance with the requirement to invest in a new residential house within the specified timeframe as mandated by Section 54(1).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429772</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>