<?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>2003 (2) TMI 157 - ITAT BOMBAY-H</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59515</link>
    <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the cost of acquisition for the retiring partners should be the market value of the property on the date of retirement. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the specific circumstances of the case, distinguishing it from previous judgments and emphasizing the natural meaning of &#039;cost of acquisition&#039; in the absence of a specific definition in the Act.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Jun 2012 12:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97965" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (2) TMI 157 - ITAT BOMBAY-H</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59515</link>
      <description>The tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, determining that the cost of acquisition for the retiring partners should be the market value of the property on the date of retirement. The decision was based on the interpretation of relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and the specific circumstances of the case, distinguishing it from previous judgments and emphasizing the natural meaning of &#039;cost of acquisition&#039; in the absence of a specific definition in the Act.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59515</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>