<?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>2024 (7) TMI 437 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755217</link>
    <description>The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding LTCG deduction under section 54EC for REC bond investments. The assessee had invested Rs 50 lakh each in REC bonds on three occasions in 2010, prior to property sale generating LTCG. The CIT(A) allowed deduction without Rs 50 lakh restriction, holding that the second proviso to section 54EC(1) limiting investment to Rs 50 lakh was inserted with effect from 01.04.2015 and applied prospectively only. Since the assessee&#039;s investments were made in 2010, before the amendment, the restriction did not apply. The ITAT upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Mar 2025 13:04:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=759440" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (7) TMI 437 - ITAT AHMEDABAD</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755217</link>
      <description>The ITAT Ahmedabad dismissed the Revenue&#039;s appeal regarding LTCG deduction under section 54EC for REC bond investments. The assessee had invested Rs 50 lakh each in REC bonds on three occasions in 2010, prior to property sale generating LTCG. The CIT(A) allowed deduction without Rs 50 lakh restriction, holding that the second proviso to section 54EC(1) limiting investment to Rs 50 lakh was inserted with effect from 01.04.2015 and applied prospectively only. Since the assessee&#039;s investments were made in 2010, before the amendment, the restriction did not apply. The ITAT upheld this decision, finding no infirmity in the CIT(A)&#039;s order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=755217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>