https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761910 Delhi HC rejected petitioner's request to cancel PFC bonds before the mandatory 5-year lock-in period. Petitioner sought premature cancellation to use proceeds for property purchase, claiming mistaken advice about tax benefits. Court held that Section 54EC bonds have statutory 5-year lock-in period integral to legislative intent of ensuring long-term capital allocation. Premature redemption would compromise statutory objectives regardless of petitioner's willingness to forgo claimed exemptions. Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Article 226 to modify contractual terms or statutory requirements. Alleged mistake of fact or misguided advice created no enforceable right for cancellation. en-us Thu, 07 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 19 Nov 2024 13:33:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761910 Delhi HC rejected petitioner's request to cancel PFC bonds before the mandatory 5-year lock-in period. Petitioner sought premature cancellation to use proceeds for property purchase, claiming mistaken advice about tax benefits. Court held that Section 54EC bonds have statutory 5-year lock-in period integral to legislative intent of ensuring long-term capital allocation. Premature redemption would compromise statutory objectives regardless of petitioner's willingness to forgo claimed exemptions. Court ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Article 226 to modify contractual terms or statutory requirements. Alleged mistake of fact or misguided advice created no enforceable right for cancellation. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 07 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761910