https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388167 The court held that compliance with Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for claiming a deduction under Section 54. Section 54(2) is considered procedural and should be viewed as directory. Substantial compliance with Section 54(1) suffices for claiming the deduction, even if the procedural requirements of Section 54(2) were not fully met. The court remitted the matter back to the revenue authority to verify if the disputed amount was utilized for construction within the prescribed time and to issue a fresh order accordingly within eight weeks. en-us Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Apr 2026 12:11:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388167 The court held that compliance with Section 54(1) of the Income Tax Act is mandatory for claiming a deduction under Section 54. Section 54(2) is considered procedural and should be viewed as directory. Substantial compliance with Section 54(1) suffices for claiming the deduction, even if the procedural requirements of Section 54(2) were not fully met. The court remitted the matter back to the revenue authority to verify if the disputed amount was utilized for construction within the prescribed time and to issue a fresh order accordingly within eight weeks. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 05 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388167