Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
The ITAT held that the sum received by the assessee pursuant to settlement and withdrawal of her pending civil suit asserting inheritance rights in immovable property did not constitute a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of sections 2(14) read with 2(47). Because the court would have determined the assessee's title only upon adjudication, no vested right was transferred; the payment was consideration to obtain an assurance and remove encumbrances on title by preventing further pursuit of estate claims. Consequently the receipt is not taxable as capital gains and the assessee's grounds on this point were allowed, aligning with the DRP's conclusion.
The ITAT held that the sum received by the assessee pursuant to settlement and withdrawal of her pending civil suit asserting inheritance rights in immovable property did not constitute a transfer of a capital asset within the meaning of sections 2(14) read with 2(47). Because the court would have determined the assessee's title only upon adjudication, no vested right was transferred; the payment was consideration to obtain an assurance and remove encumbrances on title by preventing further pursuit of estate claims. Consequently the receipt is not taxable as capital gains and the assessee's grounds on this point were allowed, aligning with the DRP's conclusion.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
