https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338243 The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT (A) upholding the order passed under section 154. The Tribunal found that the rectification order was improper as the final payment determining ownership rights was made in January 2008, as per the agreement terms. The Tribunal held that the date of registration was not relevant for reinvestment timing, supporting the assessee's original claim for capital gains deduction. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, emphasizing that the rectification order was invalid due to the timing of the final payment as per the Conveyance Deed, ultimately favoring the assessee's position based on the specific clauses of the agreement. en-us Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 30 Jan 2017 06:41:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338243 The appeal was filed against the order of the CIT (A) upholding the order passed under section 154. The Tribunal found that the rectification order was improper as the final payment determining ownership rights was made in January 2008, as per the agreement terms. The Tribunal held that the date of registration was not relevant for reinvestment timing, supporting the assessee's original claim for capital gains deduction. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, emphasizing that the rectification order was invalid due to the timing of the final payment as per the Conveyance Deed, ultimately favoring the assessee's position based on the specific clauses of the agreement. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 20 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=338243