https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258738 Deduction under s.54F was disputed on whether construction on a plot already owned by the assessee qualifies as acquisition of a "new asset". Interpreting s.54F(1), the HC held there is no statutory bar against using sale consideration to construct a residential house on land already owned; the law does not require purchase of a new site before construction. Investments in such construction made within one year prior to transfer and within three years thereafter were held eligible, so the exemption was rightly allowed. Exemption was also challenged for non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the s.139(1) due date. The HC held s.54F(4) applies only where gains are not invested within s.54F(1) timelines; since the entire consideration was invested in construction within time, deposit was unnecessary, and the appeal was rejected in favour of the assessee. en-us Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 20 Jul 2026 17:31:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258738 Deduction under s.54F was disputed on whether construction on a plot already owned by the assessee qualifies as acquisition of a "new asset". Interpreting s.54F(1), the HC held there is no statutory bar against using sale consideration to construct a residential house on land already owned; the law does not require purchase of a new site before construction. Investments in such construction made within one year prior to transfer and within three years thereafter were held eligible, so the exemption was rightly allowed. Exemption was also challenged for non-deposit in the Capital Gains Account Scheme before the s.139(1) due date. The HC held s.54F(4) applies only where gains are not invested within s.54F(1) timelines; since the entire consideration was invested in construction within time, deposit was unnecessary, and the appeal was rejected in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 14 Jul 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=258738