https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204415 For indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48, the expression "held" was treated as referring to ownership rights, not physical possession. Because the assessee entered into the purchase agreement, obtained the Section 269UL(3) certificate, and acquired property rights from that earlier date, indexation had to run from the agreement date rather than the later date of physical possession. The later payment to the tenant for vacating the premises was treated as cost of improvement, not as the starting point for holding period computation. The authority based on possession was distinguished, and the assessee's claim for indexation from the agreement date succeeded. en-us Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2013 15:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204415 For indexed cost of acquisition under Section 48, the expression "held" was treated as referring to ownership rights, not physical possession. Because the assessee entered into the purchase agreement, obtained the Section 269UL(3) certificate, and acquired property rights from that earlier date, indexation had to run from the agreement date rather than the later date of physical possession. The later payment to the tenant for vacating the premises was treated as cost of improvement, not as the starting point for holding period computation. The authority based on possession was distinguished, and the assessee's claim for indexation from the agreement date succeeded. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 15 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=204415