TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption under section 54F on the capital gains arising from transfer of the original asset, in light of the disputed transfer of the Malibu Town property and the plea that joint ownership did not amount to ownership of more than one residential house.
Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the agreement to sell executed in favour of the assessee's son constituted a valid transfer for tax purposes and whether the assessee could be said to own more than one residential house on the relevant date. The agreement, payment of consideration, subsequent registered transfer deed, and supporting surrounding circumstances showed that the transaction was acted upon and satisfied the statutory concept of transfer under section 2(47)(vi) read with section 269UA. The registered deed was treated as relating back to the date of the agreement. Independently, the assessee's interest in the other property was only a fractional, jointly held interest, and such co-ownership was held not to amount to exclusive ownership of another residential house for the proviso to section 54F.
Conclusion: The assessee was held entitled to exemption under section 54F, and the disallowance of the capital gains exemption was deleted.
TaxTMI 
