<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1995 (9) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64986</link>
    <description>A completed bequest can amount to ownership for section 54F purposes even if mutation in revenue records is pending. The analysis states that title to a specific legacy passes on the executor&#039;s assent, which may be express or implied, and that probate, administration of the estate, and the parties&#039; conduct may evidence such assent. Mutation in Land and Development Office records is evidentiary only and does not create ownership. On this reasoning, the Jor Bagh residential property was treated as already vested in the assessee, so she was regarded as owning another residential house on the relevant date and was not entitled to section 54F exemption.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Feb 2011 15:06:03 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103426" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (9) TMI 112 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64986</link>
      <description>A completed bequest can amount to ownership for section 54F purposes even if mutation in revenue records is pending. The analysis states that title to a specific legacy passes on the executor&#039;s assent, which may be express or implied, and that probate, administration of the estate, and the parties&#039; conduct may evidence such assent. Mutation in Land and Development Office records is evidentiary only and does not create ownership. On this reasoning, the Jor Bagh residential property was treated as already vested in the assessee, so she was regarded as owning another residential house on the relevant date and was not entitled to section 54F exemption.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 29 Sep 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=64986</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>