https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64397 The expression "held" in section 2(42A) was read as actual holding of the asset, not confined to registered ownership, so evidence of prior possession and substantial payment supported a holding period exceeding 60 months. On that basis, the plot qualified as a long-term capital asset and the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80T. The alternative contention that transfer had already become effective in March 1961 on possession and payment alone was rejected, because the material did not establish passing of title in law without a registered conveyance. The note thus states that factual holding can satisfy the long-term asset test, while title transfer still requires proper legal conveyance. en-us Sat, 02 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:27:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64397 The expression "held" in section 2(42A) was read as actual holding of the asset, not confined to registered ownership, so evidence of prior possession and substantial payment supported a holding period exceeding 60 months. On that basis, the plot qualified as a long-term capital asset and the assessee was entitled to deduction under section 80T. The alternative contention that transfer had already become effective in March 1961 on possession and payment alone was rejected, because the material did not establish passing of title in law without a registered conveyance. The note thus states that factual holding can satisfy the long-term asset test, while title transfer still requires proper legal conveyance. Case-Laws Income Tax Sat, 02 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64397