<?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>2011 (9) TMI 161 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206785</link>
    <description>Exemption under sections 54 and 54EC depends on the source of investment, not on whether the new residential property or specified bonds are purchased in joint names with the assessee&#039;s spouse. Where the entire consideration is paid from the assessee&#039;s funds and no contribution by the spouse is shown, the spouse&#039;s name in the sale deed or bonds does not reduce the assessee&#039;s entitlement. The analysis also relies on section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, under which title follows the source of consideration absent a contrary arrangement. On that basis, full exemption was considered available and denial of half the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Aug 2025 15:25:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=180268" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 161 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206785</link>
      <description>Exemption under sections 54 and 54EC depends on the source of investment, not on whether the new residential property or specified bonds are purchased in joint names with the assessee&#039;s spouse. Where the entire consideration is paid from the assessee&#039;s funds and no contribution by the spouse is shown, the spouse&#039;s name in the sale deed or bonds does not reduce the assessee&#039;s entitlement. The analysis also relies on section 45 of the Transfer of Property Act, under which title follows the source of consideration absent a contrary arrangement. On that basis, full exemption was considered available and denial of half the benefit was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=206785</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>