Inherited property sale proceeds require capital-gains treatment where ownership is supported by evidence, not suspicion or unverified signature doubt...
Cross-examination of retracted statements is essential where foundational evidence supports a benami allegation and documented funding explanations re...
Capital-goods exemption covers plant-modernisation accessories, while the import restriction applies only to earlier capital-goods components and spar...
Constitutional judicial review permits challenges to ECIRs and connected money-laundering proceedings where coercive action affects fundamental intere...
The case pertains to the determination of the date of "purchase" for claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. The issue revolves around whether the assessee has purchased the new house property within the stipulated time limit of 24 months from the date of transfer of the capital asset. The assessee had paid the entire sale consideration and obtained possession of the property on the same day, albeit the registration was delayed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Delhi High Court in Balraj's case held that deduction u/s 54 should not be rejected merely due to pending registration if the consideration is paid. The Karnataka High Court in Sambandam Udaykumar's case also ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the benefit u/s 54F cannot be denied if the entire payment is made, even if the registered sale deed is executed after the stipulated period. The ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, considering that the condition precedent for claiming deduction is the investment of capital gains in purchasing or constructing a residential house, and mere delay in registration should not lead to denial of the benefit.
The case pertains to the determination of the date of "purchase" for claiming deduction u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. The issue revolves around whether the assessee has purchased the new house property within the stipulated time limit of 24 months from the date of transfer of the capital asset. The assessee had paid the entire sale consideration and obtained possession of the property on the same day, albeit the registration was delayed beyond the prescribed time limit. The Delhi High Court in Balraj's case held that deduction u/s 54 should not be rejected merely due to pending registration if the consideration is paid. The Karnataka High Court in Sambandam Udaykumar's case also ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the benefit u/s 54F cannot be denied if the entire payment is made, even if the registered sale deed is executed after the stipulated period. The ITAT decided in favor of the assessee, considering that the condition precedent for claiming deduction is the investment of capital gains in purchasing or constructing a residential house, and mere delay in registration should not lead to denial of the benefit.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4798
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
