Receipt of immovable property requires actual possession or enjoyment; redevelopment allotments exchanged for tenancy rights fall outside deemed incom...
Section 80P deduction covers Souharda credit societies, including qualifying surplus-deposit interest, subject to member KYC verification for cash dep...
Transfer-pricing benchmarking and capital-receipt principles sustained taxpayer relief, while unsupported property-advance write-offs remained disallo...
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 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
