<?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>2016 (5) TMI 589 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327608</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the purchase for capital gain exemption under Section 54 was complete upon payment of consideration and commencement of construction, despite delays. The court endorsed a pragmatic interpretation of &quot;purchase,&quot; considering payments made and rights acquired, even if legal title transfer was delayed. Judicial precedents supported the view that substantial investment within the stipulated period suffices for exemption, emphasizing the legislative intent of providing relief to individuals replacing their residential house. The appeal was dismissed, finding no substantial question of law for consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 May 2026 17:48:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=428171" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (5) TMI 589 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327608</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling that the purchase for capital gain exemption under Section 54 was complete upon payment of consideration and commencement of construction, despite delays. The court endorsed a pragmatic interpretation of &quot;purchase,&quot; considering payments made and rights acquired, even if legal title transfer was delayed. Judicial precedents supported the view that substantial investment within the stipulated period suffices for exemption, emphasizing the legislative intent of providing relief to individuals replacing their residential house. The appeal was dismissed, finding no substantial question of law for consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 Mar 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=327608</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>