<?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>2007 (4) TMI 289 - ITAT BOMBAY-I</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59614</link>
    <description>The Tribunal determined that the exemption under sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to one residential house only. If an assessee invests in more than one house, they may choose which house to claim the exemption for, provided other conditions are met. In this case, the assessee had invested in two flats in different localities, and the exemption was granted for the house offering a higher deduction, as initially decided by the Assessing Officer. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the brokerage claim, as proof of payment was adequately provided. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:05:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98063" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (4) TMI 289 - ITAT BOMBAY-I</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59614</link>
      <description>The Tribunal determined that the exemption under sections 54 and 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to one residential house only. If an assessee invests in more than one house, they may choose which house to claim the exemption for, provided other conditions are met. In this case, the assessee had invested in two flats in different localities, and the exemption was granted for the house offering a higher deduction, as initially decided by the Assessing Officer. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)&#039;s decision to allow the brokerage claim, as proof of payment was adequately provided. The appeal was partly allowed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59614</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>