Stock-in-trade transfer taxability follows possession and consideration, not later conveyance registration, limiting deemed-value provisions to the ac...
Alternative statutory remedy under GST bars writ challenge where classification, notice variance, and hearing disputes require factual appellate revie...
Duplicate PAN cancellation timeframe requires prior administrative representation before judicial intervention, ensuring a time-bound decision on the ...
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 
TaxTMI 
of 4888 
