TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules possession, not just registration, key for tax exemption under Income-tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Shahajada Begam</h3> Commissioner of Income-tax Versus Shahajada Begam - [1988] 173 ITR 397/ [1988] 73 CTR 229 Issues: Interpretation of exemption u/s 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for capital gains on sale of residential property.Summary:The High Court of Andhra Pradesh considered a reference made by the Tribunal regarding the eligibility of an assessee for exemption u/s 54(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1976-77. The assessee sold a house property and claimed exemption by utilizing the proceeds to acquire another property for self-occupation. The dispute revolved around the timing of the purchase in relation to the date of possession and registration of the new property.The assessee sold a property for &8377; 38,750 and entered into an agreement to purchase another property for &8377; 47,000, paying a substantial sum upfront. Although the sale deed was registered after one year from the sale of the original property, the assessee obtained possession of the new property within the stipulated one-year period. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) considered the registration date as crucial, denying the exemption, a decision upheld by the Appellate Authority but reversed by the Tribunal.The High Court held that the critical factor was the actual possession and control of the property by the assessee within one year, not just the registration date. Despite the delay in registration, the assessee had acquired domain and control of the new property within the statutory period, fulfilling the conditions of section 54(1) for exemption. Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, concluding that the new residential property was purchased within the required timeframe.
TaxTMI 