https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20244 The HC upheld the ITAT's finding that the gain arising from transfer of the flat constituted long-term capital gain. It held that for purposes of section 2(42A) of the Income-tax Act, the expression "held" does not require absolute legal ownership but includes beneficial ownership and possession under an agreement conferring enforceable rights. The assessee, having entered into an agreement in May 1970, paid instalments, was put in possession, and was assessed on income from the property, was "holding" the asset from that date. Consequently, the period of holding exceeded the statutory threshold, and the gain could not be treated as short-term. The question was answered in favour of the assessee. en-us Wed, 28 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Dec 2025 19:26:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20244 The HC upheld the ITAT's finding that the gain arising from transfer of the flat constituted long-term capital gain. It held that for purposes of section 2(42A) of the Income-tax Act, the expression "held" does not require absolute legal ownership but includes beneficial ownership and possession under an agreement conferring enforceable rights. The assessee, having entered into an agreement in May 1970, paid instalments, was put in possession, and was assessed on income from the property, was "holding" the asset from that date. Consequently, the period of holding exceeded the statutory threshold, and the gain could not be treated as short-term. The question was answered in favour of the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 28 Jul 1993 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=20244