https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753927 ITAT Mumbai held that for LTCG deduction under Section 54, the relevant date for determining compliance with statutory timelines is the date of possession, not the agreement date, when purchasing an under-construction property. The assessee's claim was initially denied as the new asset wasn't purchased within prescribed periods from the original asset's transfer date. However, following Bombay HC precedent in CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain, the tribunal ruled that since no residential house existed at agreement execution, possession date (16.11.2015) should be considered the actual purchase date. This fell within the required two-year period from the original asset's sale agreement (22.07.2015), allowing the Section 54 exemption claim. en-us Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753927 ITAT Mumbai held that for LTCG deduction under Section 54, the relevant date for determining compliance with statutory timelines is the date of possession, not the agreement date, when purchasing an under-construction property. The assessee's claim was initially denied as the new asset wasn't purchased within prescribed periods from the original asset's transfer date. However, following Bombay HC precedent in CIT v. Smt. Beena K. Jain, the tribunal ruled that since no residential house existed at agreement execution, possession date (16.11.2015) should be considered the actual purchase date. This fell within the required two-year period from the original asset's sale agreement (22.07.2015), allowing the Section 54 exemption claim. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 10 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=753927