<?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>2010 (10) TMI 1260 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462972</link>
    <description>The ITAT Chennai held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, having complied with conditions by depositing the sale consideration in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme and purchasing a new residential property within the prescribed period. The Tribunal relied on bank certifications and documentary evidence to confirm compliance. It declined to rule on the enhancement of sale consideration under section 50C, as the issue was not addressed by the lower appellate authority and was considered academic. The Tribunal also found that the discrepancy in the date on Form No. 36 did not invalidate the appeals, which were filed within the statutory period, and therefore disposed of the appeals on merits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Jul 2025 12:58:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=839412" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2010 (10) TMI 1260 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462972</link>
      <description>The ITAT Chennai held that the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, having complied with conditions by depositing the sale consideration in the Capital Gains Deposit Scheme and purchasing a new residential property within the prescribed period. The Tribunal relied on bank certifications and documentary evidence to confirm compliance. It declined to rule on the enhancement of sale consideration under section 50C, as the issue was not addressed by the lower appellate authority and was considered academic. The Tribunal also found that the discrepancy in the date on Form No. 36 did not invalidate the appeals, which were filed within the statutory period, and therefore disposed of the appeals on merits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462972</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>