Development rights acquisition date governs capital gains holding period; long-term treatment and exemptions under sections 54EC and 54F were upheld.

For capital gains purposes, the holding period for development rights runs from the substantive acquisition of those rights, and a later registered agreement does not by itself change the acquisition date. On the facts, the rights were acquired under agreements entered into in 1997, so the transfer gain was treated as long-term capital gains and not short-term capital gains. The assessee's exemption claims were also sustained because investment in bonds qualified for deduction under section 54EC, and the funds were found to have been used for construction of a jointly owned house, supporting deduction under section 54F. The contrary objection based on routing of funds was rejected on the factual record.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the gain arising from transfer of development rights in the land was assessable as long-term capital gains or short-term capital gains. (ii) Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under sections 54EC and 54F.

Issue (i): Whether the gain arising from transfer of development rights in the land was assessable as long-term capital gains or short-term capital gains.

Analysis: The assessee had entered into agreements in 1997 for acquiring development rights in the land, and one part of the consideration was paid by cheque in that year. A later registered agreement in 2004 recorded the same arrangement between the same parties and reflected the earlier consideration. The substantive acquisition of rights was thus traceable to 1997, and the later registration did not change the date of acquisition of those rights for capital gains purposes.

Conclusion: The gain was held to be long-term capital gains and not short-term capital gains.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessee was entitled to deduction under sections 54EC and 54F.

Analysis: The assessee invested in bonds and also claimed that the capital gains funds were utilized for construction of a joint family house. The objection that the money routed through the capital gains account was transferred to another person was rejected on the factual finding that the amount was used for construction of the jointly owned property.

Conclusion: The deductions under sections 54EC and 54F were allowed.

Final Conclusion: The assessment of the transfer proceeds as short-term capital gains was reversed, and the assessee's exemption claims were upheld, resulting in full relief in the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: For capital gains purposes, the date on which development rights are substantively acquired controls the holding period, and a later registered document evidencing an earlier transaction does not, by itself, shift the acquisition date; exemption claims supported by actual qualifying investment or use of funds cannot be denied on a purely formal objection.

---